Search

This study explores civil remedies for assault, allowing victims to claim damages for psychological harm and use force in self-defense. If a victim defends themselves and faces a counterclaim, the initial tort may mitigate their liability. When a tort is used as a defense in a criminal case, it can trigger issue estoppel in subsequent civil proceedings meaning that if the defendant loses the criminal case, they often lose the civil case as well. The situation differs when it comes to moral damages resulting from criminal acts. Moral damage refers to injury to legally protected interests, such as personal security, caused by a tortious act. Victims of criminal offenses that also constitute torts can use these acts as evidence of liability in civil actions. However, specific remedies for moral damage are often insufficient or absent, particularly for victims of violent crimes. These victims may struggle to obtain more than nominal damages for assault or battery, facing challenges due to tort limitation periods, which may require suing for false imprisonment while still involved in criminal proceedings. The case of Phillips v UK exemplifies this, where the Crown's immunity extended to acts violating personal dignity, making it difficult for victims to pursue actions for moral damages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Estoppel is generally aimed at promoting equity and fairness in litigation by preventing a person (asserter) from resiling or asserting something contrary to what was implied by a previous action, conduct or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination regarding such action, conduct or statement. Accordingly, issue estoppel could be defined to include instances where a person is prevented from relitigating or raising a particular issue in a cause of action that was previously decided by a final judgement of a competent court between the same parties in future cases that have a different cause of action involving such parties. In other words, res judicata prevents the re-litigation of a dispute that was previously decided by a final judgement of a competent court between the same parties (idem actor) or persons (eadem persona) for the same relief, thing or right (eadem res) on the same ground or same cause of action (eadem causa petendi) in future cases involving such parties or their privies. Issue estoppel and res judicata are closely interrelated. For instance, both issue estoppel and res judicata have similar requirements. Nonetheless, issue estoppel and res judicata are relatively different in their application. Accordingly, issue estoppel may only be employed as a defence in appropriate instances where it is justifiable for the court to dispense with the strict application of the requirements of res judicata. Having said this, it must be noted that issue estoppel and res judicata have been confusingly and inconsistently employed in many South African cases to date. Such confusion is mostly found in relation to the relaxation of the three-fold requirements of res judicata and the application of issue estoppel. Given this background, this article exposes certain challenges that are associated with the practical enforcement of issue estoppel in South Africa with reference to Prinsloo NO v Goldex 15(243/11) [2012] ZASCA 28 (28 March 2012).

The doctrine of estoppel precludes a person (asserter) from asserting something different or contrary to what is implied by a previous action, conduct or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination. While there are various types of estoppel, this article is primarily focused on the application of issue estoppel in relation to certain aspects of the directors’ fiduciary duties in South Africa (s 76 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Companies Act 2008)), in light of the judgment in Royal Sechaba v Coote (366/2013) [2014] ZASCA 85 (30 May 2014) (Royal Sechaba case). Issue estoppel could be defined to include instances where a person is precluded from re-litigating or raising a particular issue in a cause of action that was previously decided by a final judgment of a competent court between the same parties in future cases that have a different cause of action involving such parties. Issue estoppel is closely related to res judicata. For instance,both issue estoppel and res judicata are generally aimed at preventing the re-litigation of the same issues and same cause of actions that were previously decided by a final judgment in the relevant courts between same parties. Nonetheless, it is widely acknowledged that the application these two concepts is quite different in practice. For instance, some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom (UK) and South Africa employs English law and Roman-Dutch law (common law) principles respectively, to distinguish between issue estoppel and res judicata. Likewise, similar common law principles are employed in the United States of America (USA), Canada and Australia to distinguish res judicata and issue estoppel in various ways. For example, issue estoppel is sometimes referred to as collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, claim preclusion or cause of action estoppel in USA, Canada and Australia. Despite this, it should be noted that a detailed discussion of the different requirements, merits and demerits of issue estoppel and res judicata in various jurisdictions is beyond the scope of this article. Put differently, this article provides a brief discussion of the application of issue estoppel to commercial agreements (certain aspects of the directors’ fiduciary duties) in South Africa in accordance with the Royal Sechaba case. This is done to investigate whether the requirements of issue estoppel were correctly applied and enforced in Royal Sechaba case.

Parties have occasionally sought to use findings on jurisdiction made by a court in one country to preclude re-litigation of the same matter elsewhere. In common law countries the traditional means by which this tactic has been employed is the doctrine of issue estoppel. The aim of this article is to assess the extent to which jurisdictional determinations by foreign courts can have binding effects in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Estoppel is generally aimed at promoting equity and fairness in litigation by preventing a person (asserter) from resiling or asserting something contrary to what was implied by a previous action, conduct or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination regarding such action, conduct or statement. Accordingly, issue estoppel could be defined to include instances where a person is prevented from relitigating or raising a particular issue in a cause of action that was previously decided by a final judgement of a competent court between the same parties in future cases that have a different cause of action involving such parties. In other words, res judicata prevents the re-litigation of a dispute that was previously decided by a final judgement of a competent court between the same parties (idem actor) or persons (eadem persona) for the same relief, thing or right (eadem res) on the same ground or same cause of action (eadem causa petendi) in future cases involving such parties or their privies. Issue estoppel and res judicata are closely interrelated. For instance, both issue estoppel and res judicata have similar requirements. Nonetheless, issue estoppel and res judicata are relatively different in their application. Accordingly, issue estoppel may only be employed as a defence in appropriate instances where it is justifiable for the court to dispense with the strict application of the requirements of res judicata. Having said this, it must be noted that issue estoppel and res judicata have been confusingly and inconsistently employed in many South African cases to date. Such confusion is mostly found in relation to the relaxation of the three-fold requirements of res judicata and the application of issue estoppel. Given this background, this article exposes certain challenges that are associated with the practical enforcement of issue estoppel in South Africa with reference to Prinsloo NO v Goldex 15 (243/11) [2012] ZASCA 28 (28 March 2012). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The doctrine of estoppel precludes a person (asserter) from asserting something different or contrary to what is implied by a previous action, conduct or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination. While there are various types of estoppel, this article is primarily focused on the application of issue estoppel in relation to certain aspects of the directors' fiduciary duties in South Africa (s 76 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Companies Act 2008)), in light of the judgment in Royal Sechaba v Coote (366/2013) [2014] ZASCA 85 (30 May 2014) (Royal Sechaba case). Issue estoppel could be defined to include instances where a person is precluded from re-litigating or raising a particular issue in a cause of action that was previously decided by a final judgment of a competent court between the same parties in future cases that have a different cause of action involving such parties. Issue estoppel is closely related to res judicata. For instance, both issue estoppel and res judicata are generally aimed at preventing the re-litigation of the same issues and same cause of actions that were previously decided by a final judgment in the relevant courts between same parties. Nonetheless, it is widely acknowledged that the application these two concepts is quite different in practice. For instance, some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom (UK) and South Africa employs English law and Roman-Dutch law (common law) principles respectively, to distinguish between issue estoppel and res judicata. Likewise, similar common law principles are employed in the United States of America (USA), Canada and Australia to distinguish res judicata and issue estoppel in various ways. For example, issue estoppel is sometimes referred to as collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, claim preclusion or cause of action estoppel in USA, Canada and Australia. Despite this, it should be noted that a detailed discussion of the different requirements, merits and demerits of issue estoppel and res judicata in various jurisdictions is beyond the scope of this article. Put differently, this article provides a brief discussion of the application of issue estoppel to commercial agreements (certain aspects of the directors' fiduciary duties) in South Africa in accordance with the Royal Sechaba case. This is done to investigate whether the requirements of issue estoppel were correctly applied and enforced in Royal Sechaba case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]