King v Lintrose Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors; Hopkins v King

(2001) 4 VR 619; [2001] VSCA 140

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Res judicata
3. › Cause of action estoppel
4. › Whether fresh proceeding barred where same cause of action litigated but no substantive relief obtained against particular defendants
5. › Whether abandonment of relief against defendants in original proceeding bars subsequent claim on same cause of action
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Anshun estoppel
3. › Unreasonableness of not claiming relief in earlier proceeding
4. › Whether failure to pursue equitable compensation in original proceeding bars subsequent claim
5. › Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
1. Equity
2. › Equitable compensation
3. › Supplemental relief
4. › Jurisdiction to grant supplemental orders after court of equity has assumed control
5. › Whether jurisdiction extends beyond specific performance cases
6. › Whether impecuniosity of judgment debtor constitutes 'new fact'
7. › McKenna v Richey [1950] VLR 360
8. › Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Interlocutory orders
4. › Whether decision attended with sufficient doubt to warrant grant of leave
5. › Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 17A(4)(b)

Quick Take

Where a plaintiff litigates a cause of action against multiple defendants but obtains no substantive relief against some of them, a subsequent proceeding on the same cause of action against those defendants is barred by res judicata or Anshun estoppel. The equitable jurisdiction to grant supplemental relief in the original proceeding (McKenna v Richey) requires 'new facts' — facts occurring after the decree or discovered afterwards — and the impecuniosity of a judgment debtor that was foreseeable and not inquired into may not qualify. The question whether this supplemental jurisdiction extends beyond specific performance cases to cases of rescission remains open.