header-logo header-logo

Autrefois acquit

23 July 2009
Issue: 7379 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Coke-Wallis v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2009] EWCA Civ 730; [2009] All ER (D) 147 (Jul)

For the doctrine of autrefois acquit to apply, it was necessary that the accused should have been put in peril of conviction for the same offence as that with which he was then charged. The word “offence” embraced both the facts which constituted the crime and the legal characteristics which made it an offence. For the doctrine to apply, it would have to be the same offence both in fact and law, or offences which were substantially the same. Legal characteristics were precise things and were either the same or not. Autrefois acquit should be kept within limits that were precise.

There was a public interest in the finality of litigation and in a defendant not being vexed twice in the same matter; but that whether an action was an abuse of process as offending against the public interests involved all the facts of the case, the crucial question being whether the claimant was in all the circumstances misusing or abusing the process of the court. The court required parties to litigation to bring forward their whole case, and would not permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in subsequent proceedings which were not brought forward in the first proceedings only because they had, from negligence, inadvertence or even accident, omitted part of their case.

Issue: 7379 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll