Appeal: res-judicata and Anshun estoppel

Federal Court (Full Court). In determining whether a "claim" estoppel arises, can different grounds of jurisdictional error be seen as separate causes of action or claims arising out of the one decision? In determining whether Anshun estoppel arises, is the principal inquiry "whether the ground of review should have been brought forward in the first proceeding, in the sense that it was unreasonable for the appellant not to have done so"?

Some of the questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:

Question 1: In determining whether a "claim" estoppel arises, can different grounds of jurisdictional error be seen as separate causes of action or claims arising out of the one decision?

Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is 'yes', can it be said that "the question whether there is identity between the earlier cause of action and the ones raised in the proceeding said to be the subject of the plea is to be determined by matters of substance rather than the form of the particular proceeding or the way in which it is pleaded"?

Question 3: Was it the Minister, who raised Anshun estoppel, the party who bore the onus to prove the factual basis for the operation of Anshun estoppel?

Question 4: In determining whether Anshun estoppel arises, is the principal inquiry "whether the ground of review should have been brought forward in the first proceeding, in the sense that it was unreasonable for the appellant not to have done so"?

Question 5: Did the primary judge fail to "appreciate the exceptional nature of the existence of circumstances that would overcome the Anshun preclusion"?

Question 6: Did the Appellant and his advisors make "a forensic choice not to advance the ground the subject of the proceedings before" the primary judge? Or did the Appellant’s advisors simply "not conceive of the point at the time the proceeding was argued before" the primary judge?

Question 7: May there be "circumstances where an independent contention that a proceeding is an abuse of process might be accepted"?

Question 8: Do the "factors which have persuaded the Court to grant an extension of time, and to find special circumstances justifying the non-application of the Anshun principle, mean that it would not be appropriate to then find the proceeding to be an abuse of process"?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows:

The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.

Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:

Monthly Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
-
$ 29 /month
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
-
$ 49 / month
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 9 / month
$ 69 / month
Subscribe

Annual Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
Save $ 49 / year
$ 299 / year
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
Save $ 89 / year
$ 499 / year
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 237 / year
$ 699 / year
Subscribe

 

Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.

Content Types

Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.

Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.

Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.

Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.

If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.

Previous articleCitizenship: evidence of parentage
Next articles 189: reasonableness determined based on all the evidence before court?