| 单词 | Issue estoppel |
| 释义 | 爭論點不得自駁 A judicial determination directly involving an issue of fact or law which has disposed of the issue so that it cannot thereafter be raised by the same parties. The party asserts the estoppel must establish: (a) there has already been a judicial decision by a competent court of tribunal (b) of a final character (c) of the same question as that sought to be put in issue by the plea in respect of which the estoppel is claimed, (d) between the same parties, or their privies, as the parties between whom the question is sought to be put in issue. It differs from res judicata that res judicata relates to the entire claim, rather than just one issue: Union (V-Tex) Shirt Factory Ltd v Union V-Tex Realty Ltd & Ors [1985] HKLR 152 (HC); Wai Sau Ming v Wong Chow Tsai Tse [1996] HKLY 1128. It can be based on a foreign judgment of competent jurisdiction: Deak Perera (Far East) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Otto Emil Roethenmund [1995] 1 HKLR 145 (HC). It also applies in arbitration proceedings: China Resources Metals and Minerals Co Ltd v Ananda Non-ferrous Metals Ltd [1994] HKLY 73. The basic application was to final judgments and not to interlocutory judgments: Gridway Knitteres Ltd v Tak Lam Hong Ltd [1988] HKLY 735 (CA). It does not arise unless the question which has been decided was the same and was final in the sense of being ‘final and conclusive on the merits’ and ‘the cause of action must be extinguished by the decision which is said to create the estoppel’: Kung Wong Sau Hin & Anor v Sze To Chun Keung & Ors [1996] HKLY 904. If the action comes to an end not by a determination by the court on the merits after the matter has been litigated, nor by a consent judgment, but by a unilateral application by the plaintiff to the court to terminate the claim, issue estoppel does not apply: Leung Tong Fuk v Chan Yuk Kwan [1996] HKLY 1047. The doctrine of issue estoppel had no place in criminal law: R v Humphreys [1977] AC 1; HKSAR v Ching Chin Pang [2000] 2 HKLRD E6. See also Autrefois acquit; Autrefois convict; Collateral estoppel; Estoppel; Res judicata. 指直接牽涉事實或法律爭論點的司法裁定，它已對該爭論點作出處理，故自那時起同一方不能再提起。主張不得自駁 一方必須證明：(a) 管轄審裁法院已作出司法裁決(b)而該裁決的性質是最終的(c) 該裁決正是就答辯提出作為爭論點的同一問題所作，而不得自駁也正正是就它提出申索(d)而裁決是相同的各方之間，或它們的利害關係人之間的，也就是將問題提出作為爭論點的各方之間。爭論點不得自駁與已判定的事件不同，後者關係著整個申索，而非僅在一項爭論點上：Union(V-Tex) Shirt Factory Ltd v Union V-Tex Realty Ltd & Ors [1985] HKLR 152（高等法院）；Wai Sau Ming v Wong Chow Tsai Tse [1996] HKLY 1128。它可依據外地司法管轄的判定：Deak Perera(Far East) Ltd(In Liquidation) v Otto Emil Roethenmund [1995] 1 HKLR 145（高等法院）。它亦適用於仲裁程序：China Resources Metals and Minerals Co Ltd v Ananda Non-ferrous Metals Ltd [1994] HKLY 73。主要應用於最後判決而非非正審判決：Gridway Knitteres Ltd v Tak Lam Hong Ltd [1988] HKLY 735（上訴法院）。爭論點不得自駁的情形不會發生，除非已作出裁決的問題是一樣並且是最終的，即「就個案的事非曲直為最終及具決定性的」，及「訴訟因由必須因為被稱為產生不得自駁的裁決所終絕」：Kung Wong Sau Hin & Anor v Sze To Chun Keung & Ors [1996] HKLY 904。如訴訟並不因事件在爭訟後，法庭就個案的事非曲直所作的裁決而終止，而是因原告人單方面向法院作終止申索的申請，爭論點不得自駁並不適用：Leung Tong Fuk v Chan Yuk Kwan [1996] HKLY 1047。爭論點不得自駁不適用於刑事法：R v Humphreys [1977] AC 1；HKSAR v Ching Chin Pang [2000] 2 HKLRD E6。另見 Autrefois acquit; Autrefois convict; Collateral estoppel; Estoppel; Res judicata。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。