½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

View the related checklists about Res judicata

Ending a claim—checklist

Ending a claim—checklist How can litigation be brought to an end? There are a number of ways in which litigation can be ended. These include: Action Further guidance Admissions under CPR 14 which could effectively bring the dispute to an end Practice Note: Admissions Jurisdiction—the court may not have the jurisdiction to determine the matter, finding for example, that it should be determined by another country, by arbitration, etc Practice Note: Challenging court jurisdiction—overview, and then more detailed guidance on various aspects of this topic, including Practice Notes:Challenging court jurisdiction—general principlesChallenging court jurisdiction—has a party submitted to a jurisdiction?Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (timing and extensions of time)Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (general considerations)Also relevant Precedents, including: Draft order for an application to challenge English court jurisdiction, Witness statement in support of an application to challenge English court jurisdiction and Witness statement opposing an application to challenge English court jurisdiction The defendant failing to engage in the proceedings, which results in the court entering a judgment in...

View the related practice notes about Res judicata

Conduct of employment tribunal hearings—general

STOP PRESS: The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, SI 2024/1155 (ET Rules 2024) in force from 6 January 2025, replace the ET Rules 2013 set out in Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237 from that date. The Employment Tribunals (Procedure Rules) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/1156, also in force 6 January 2025, primarily amend the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237 to facilitate the coming into force of the ET Rules 2024. Presidential Guidance and Practice Directions will be amended to reflect the new rules in due course.For a destination table showing how the ET Rules 2024 correspond to the ET Rules 2013, and incorporating notes on the changes, see Practice Note: Employment tribunal rules of procedure 2024—destination table. This Practice Note will be updated in light of the ET Rules 2024 as soon as possible.STOP PRESS: On 30 January 2023 the Senior President of Tribunals issued a consultation (with a deadline for responses of...

Employment claims in Scottish civil courts

Employment claims in Scottish civil courts Scottish civil courts, like their counterparts in England and Wales, can and do decide certain employment disputes. However, there are very significant differences between the civil court systems in Scotland and in England and Wales which practitioners need to be aware of. This Practice Note provides an overview of: • the most common orders sought by employment lawyers in Scottish civil courts • the structure of the Scottish civil court system • the jurisdiction and key features of each relevant court • rights of audience • rules of procedure • important points about: ◦ breach of contract claims in Scotland ◦ injunctive (interlocutory) relief in Scotland ◦ dawn raids in Scotland ◦ industrial relations disputes in Scotland ◦ equality of terms claims in Scotland The purpose of this Practice Note is to provide an introduction to the key features of the Scottish civil court system for employment lawyers. It is not intended to and does not purport to be a comprehensive account of...

View the related q&as about Res judicata

Where a claim has been stayed because the respondent company is in administration, is the respondent nevertheless required to submit an ET3 (within the usual timeframe), or can the respondent wait for the stay to be lifted before submitting the ET3?

Where a claim has been stayed because the respondent company is in administration, is the respondent nevertheless required to submit an ET3 (within the usual timeframe), or can the respondent wait for the stay to be lifted before submitting the ET3? Paragraph 43(6) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides, so far as relevant, as follows: ‘No legal process may be…continued against [a company in administration] except with the consent of the administrator or with the permission of the court’. The ‘court’ in this instance is, exclusively, the Companies Court and not the Employment Tribunal (ET). It has been confirmed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the ET has no power or discretion to continue with a claim against a company in administration (see Ince Gordon Dadds LLP v Tunstall). That can only be done with the consent of the administrator (which is rarely given, for obvious reasons) or by Order of the Companies Court. The only course available to the...

In financial remedy proceedings, where the husband has credit cards that are in his sole name but were used for the benefit of the family by way of general family living expenses during a long marriage, is the onus on the husband to prove that the credit cards debts are family debts or is it on the wife to prove that they are not family debts and were used solely for the benefit of the husband?

In financial remedy proceedings, where the husband has credit cards that are in his sole name but were used for the benefit of the family by way of general family living expenses during a long marriage, is the onus on the husband to prove that the credit cards debts are family debts or is it on the wife to prove that they are not family debts and were used solely for the benefit of the husband? The question raises the not uncommon scenario within financial remedy proceedings of how to treat debts. A distinction is drawn between debts incurred for the benefit of the family and debts not so incurred (this may included debts incurred both during the marriage and post-separation). There is the perception that the former are treated more sympathetically than the latter, although both may be considered within the concept of financial needs pursuant to section 25(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). We have not been able to find specific authority for...

View the related News about Res judicata

Res Judicata and the protection of registered designs in the EU and UK post-Brexit (Praesidiad v Zaun)

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision striking out Zaun Ltd’s (Zaun) counterclaim challenging the validity of a registered EU Design (REUD) and its UK re-registered design (UKRRD) equivalent. Praesidiad Holding BVBA (Praesidiad), previously known as Betafence, the design rights holder, had already successfully defended the design’s validity through the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and EU courts. The Court of Appeal ruled that Zaun’s renewed UK challenge was barred by res judicata (the legal doctrine preventing re-litigation of claims or issues that have already been resolved by a competent court) and constituted an abuse of process, despite the UK’s departure from the EU. The decision reinforces that EUIPO judgments, particularly where upheld by the EU General Court, may remain binding in UK proceedings involving post-Brexit re-registered rights. For rights holders, this affirms the continued value and enforceability of EU-originated IP rights in the UK. For defendants, it highlights the importance of raising and resolving validity issues in the appropriate forum, as opportunities to re-litigate...

Pensions weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of Pensions weekly highlights includes a review of key news stories, as well as dates for your diary and trackers.