 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Res inter alios acta, aliis nec nocet nec prodest (Latin for "a thing done between some does not harm or benefit others") is a law doctrine which holds that a contract cannot adversely affect the rights of one who is not a party to the contract.
"Res inter alios" has a common meaning: "A matter between others is not our business."
The doctrine of res inter alios acta is a principle of fundamental justice, and therefore applies to Western law generally. This is because the doctrine includes (but is not limited to) acts done by others without the knowledge or consent of the person being accused or prejudiced.
For example, consider a situation where a person "A" commits a crime a decade after divorcing their fornmer spouse "B". As long as "B" had no knowledge of the crime, "B" cannot be prejudiced or punished for it in (say) "B's" subsequent divorce with "C". In that instance, the doctrine protects against "B's" divorce being tainted by "C" bringing "A's" crime into evidence.
More broadly, the doctrine of res inter alios acta stands for the proposition that civil judgments are not admissible in subsequent proceedings involving different parties. For example, the doctrine may apply to the barring of prior judicial rulings or their finding from subsequent cases. This is a nuanced area of law, and its application may vary from country to country.
Canada is an example of such nuance. In the case of British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, 2011 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2011] 1 SCR 657 , the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether Mr. Malik should be civilly sued by the State in relation to the Air India bombings case, even though he was acquitted of the bombings in a criminal trial.
In pursuing the civil case, the State convinced a Provincial Supreme Court judge to issue an interlocutory order authorizing the search of business and residential properties of the Malik family for evidence that they helped conceal Mr. Malik’s assets. Evidently, the search found what appeared to be evidence of concealed assets, because the State then sued Mr. Malik for debt, breach of contract, conspiracy, and fraud.
The reason the State sued Mr. Malik was because Mr. Malik had used a Rowbotham application (i.e. free legal representation, equivalent to a "Legal Aid lawyer" or "Public Defender") to pay for his legal costs of the criminal trial in which he was acquitted. The State felt it could do so because a Rowbotham application is financially "means-tested", i.e. free defense is only granted to those who cannot afford their own lawyer, and that it argued Mr. Malik had lied about his finances in order to qualify for it.
The issue was that Mr. Malik had claimed he was a multimillionaire for bail purposes (i.e. when it was to his advantage to appear rich so as to be given bail). But then, once out on bail, he'd applied for legal representation using a Rowbotham application (i.e. when it was to his advantage to appear poor), and there he'd claimed his assets were $0. The State decided to sue Mr. Malik to recoup the more than $5.2 million of public funds used in his defense.
Mr. Malik's defense sought to utilize the doctrine of res inter alios acta to assert that the criminal proceeding couldn't be used in a civil suit to recoup the legal costs. This was because Mr. Malik been aquitted in the criminal proceeding, thus, it was a legal fact he wasn't responsible for the crime. Mr. Malik argued that due to his acquittal, the Judge erred in ordering the search of his residential and business properties which discovered his hidden assets - specifically, as the doctrine of res inter alios acta precluded its issuance by the Judge.
Mr. Malik relied upon the doctrine of res inter alios acta as it applies to excluding different matters (rather than persons, as was the case the initial example of "A" "B" and "C"). In other words, Mr. Malik argued that even though the civil suit involved the same parties (i.e. Mr. Malik and the State), it was about a fundamentally different matter: i.e. about his Rowbotham application, and not about the Air India bombing or its victims.
As such, Mr. Malik argued that the search order was effectively a punishment (i.e. an adverse effect) of the Air India Bombings crimes, in which it was legally proven he played no part, in other words, a violation of the doctrine of res inter alios acta.
Ultimately, the case went to the highest court in Canada, a.k.a. the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the doctrine of res inter alios acta did not protect Mr. Malik - however, there were a number of caveats and limitations to that lack of protection. The SCC ruled that res inter alios acta does not prevent "a judgment of a prior civil or criminal case" from being used in another case as evidence, but only in the following limiting circumstances:
a) only if it was considered relevant to the issues in the other case (i.e. if its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect);
b) the judgement can only be used as evidence in interlocutory proceedings (i.e. not in a trial proper);
c) the judgement can only be used as proof of its findings and conclusions (i.e. not used as evidence of presumptive guilt in the civil case);
d) provided the parties are the same or were themselves participants in the prior proceedings; and
e) provided the two cases were about similar or related issues.
Even then, the SCC held that the following limitations applied to that evidence (the prior judgement):
a) The weight to be given to the earlier decision will rest not only on the identity of the participants, the similarity of the issues, the nature of the earlier proceedings and the opportunity given to the prejudiced party to contest it but on all the varying circumstances of the particular case.
b) The issue of admissibility is separate and distinct from whether, once admitted, the prior decision is conclusive and binding
c) The prejudiced party or parties will have an opportunity before the reviewing judge to lead evidence to contradict the earlier findings or lessen their weight unless precluded from doing so by the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppels or abuse of process.
In other words:
a) The Judge in the civil suit still had to decide how much weight or relevance the Air India Bombings case and its findings had to the issue of legal fees and finances.
b) The Judge couldn't use the fact of (e.g.) guilt or innocence in the criminal case to infer guilt or innocence in the civil suit.
c) And, the Judge had to give Mr. Malik an opportunity to defend himself by contradicting the earlier findings or rulings (which was an aquittal, so that was not particularly useful to Mr. Malik in this instance).
Many UK cases cite insurance contracts as being res inter alios acta. It seems to be in line with the "privity of contract" doctrine.
Case law: George E. Taylor & Co. v. Percy Trentham (1980)
Taylor were nominated subcontractors to Trentham. They also had a contract with the employer (collateral contract) whereby they warranted due performance of the subcontract works so that the main contractors should not become entitled to an extension of time. The employer paid Trentham only £7,526 against an interim certificate of £22,101. The amount withheld was the balance payable to the subcontractors after deduction of the main contractor's claim against them for delay. It was held that the employer was not entitled to withhold the money as the contract between the employer and the subcontractor was res inter alios acta. [1]
The adversarial system or adversary system or accusatorial system or accusatory system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a judge or jury, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly. It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems where a judge investigates the case.
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.
Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and regulations along with some standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.
A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.
In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.
Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on their word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. Estoppel is also a concept in international law.
In law, a summary judgment, also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition, is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."
The law of Japan refers to the legal system in Japan, which is primarily based on legal codes and statutes, with precedents also playing an important role. Japan has a civil law legal system with six legal codes, which were greatly influenced by Germany, to a lesser extent by France, and also adapted to Japanese circumstances. The Japanese Constitution enacted after World War II is the supreme law in Japan. An independent judiciary has the power to review laws and government acts for constitutionality.
Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty or, in extreme cases, life, as well as suffering the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; albeit prosecution may fail to complete such task, the trier-of-fact's acceptance that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will in theory lead to conviction of the defendant. A failure for the trier-of-fact to accept that the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been met thus entitles the accused to an acquittal. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Under the Constitution of Finland, everyone is entitled to have their case heard by a court or an authority appropriately and without undue delay. This is achieved through the judicial system of Finland.
Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states, or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort, or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Dépeçage is an issue within choice of law.
Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.
In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.
Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts. The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions.
The law of the Republic of China as applied in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu is based on civil law with its origins in the modern Japanese and German legal systems. The main body of laws are codified into the Six Codes:
This collection of lists of law topics collects the names of topics related to law. Everything related to law, even quite remotely, should be included on the alphabetical list, and on the appropriate topic lists. All links on topical lists should also appear in the main alphabetical listing. The process of creating lists is ongoing – these lists are neither complete nor up-to-date – if you see an article that should be listed but is not, please update the lists accordingly. You may also want to include Wikiproject Law talk page banners on the relevant pages.
R v Central Criminal Court[2014] UKSC 17 was a 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The court held that as inter partes proceedings created a lis between the parties, equal treatment meant that ex parte evidence in general could not be adduced.
Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc, 2020 SCC 25 is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the position of the anti-deprivation rule within Canadian insolvency law. It held that, because of differences in Canadian law, the rule has wider application relative to the English rule applied by the UK Supreme Court in Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd.
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
