AC-2024-LON-001145 - [2025] EWHC 2075 (Admin)

Mr Dunlop replied to Mr Ojo’s oral submissions by observing that the authorities did not suggest that res judicata applied only if a party had pursued previous litigation beyond an early stage. There was no reason why an adverse outcome early in proceedings should be treated any differently to an adverse outcome later in litigation; otherwise res judicata might not apply until every possible step (such as an appeal to the Supreme Court) had been attempted.

Mr Dunlop submitted that, having raised a cause of action or issue in one set of proceedings, the same cause or issue could not as a matter of principle be raised again. He submitted that, in any event, the wider public interest in preventing the abuse of the processes of the court meant that the court should not allow the same issue to be litigated twice.

Mr Dunlop submitted that I should not consider Grounds 1-5 at all. He contended that, by doing so, I would be encouraging duplicate litigation with a concomitant burden on the court.