Henderson v Henderson
A party must bring forward its whole case in litigation, and the court will not allow it to raise in later proceedings matters which could and should have been raised in the earlier ones.
Facts
Following litigation in Newfoundland between the members of a family about the estate of a deceased partner, in which a judgment had been given against one of them, that party brought proceedings in England, raising issues about the partnership accounts which he could have raised in the Newfoundland proceedings, but had not. The question was whether he could raise those matters in England.
Legal principle
Sir James Wigram VC held that he could not. He said that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not, except under special circumstances, permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The rule in Henderson v Henderson, now treated as part of the law of abuse of process, as explained in Johnson v Gore Wood, applies to foreign judgments as well as domestic ones.
Related cases on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
- Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433
- Emanuel v Symon [1908] 1 KB 302
- Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA [2018] UKSC 34
- Krombach v Bamberski Case C-7/98, [2000] ECR I-1935
- Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 443
- Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, [2013] 1 AC 236
- Schibsby v Westenholz (1870) LR 6 QB 155
Studying conflict of laws? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
