Research- Issue Estoppel in English Law: Elements

1. Identity of Issues: The issue in the current case must be identical to the issue that was
decided in the previous case. This means that the same question of fact or law must be
at the heart of both proceedings. Case Law: In the case of Carl Zeiss Stiftung v
Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) (1967), the House of Lords emphasized the requirement
of an identity of issues. Lord Upjohn stated that issue estoppel applies when "the same
question has been decided" in the previous case. This means that the issue in the
current case must be identical to the one decided in the prior proceeding.

2. Finality of Previous Decision: The previous decision must be final and conclusive. It must
have been made by a court or tribunal with the authority to make such a decision. Case
Law: In Henderson v Henderson (1843), it was established that parties are generally
not allowed to reopen issues that could have been raised in previous proceedings but
were not. This underscores the importance of a final and conclusive decision.

3. Party to Previous Proceeding: The party against whom issue estoppel is being invoked
must have been a party to the previous proceeding or must have been in privity (a close
legal relationship) with a party to that proceeding. Case Law: In Arnold v National
Westminster Bank plc (1991), the House of Lords held that issue estoppel applies even
if the parties in the two cases are not identical as long as there is a sufficient degree of
identity or privity between them. In this case, a company and its liquidator were
considered in privity, allowing the application of issue estoppel.

4. Necessary to Decide: The issue in question must have been necessary to decide in the
previous case. In other words, it must have been a crucial and fundamental issue for the
resolution of that case. Case Law: In Vodafone Group Plc v Office of
Communications (2006), the Court of Appeal emphasized that for issue estoppel to
apply, the issue in question must have been "necessarily determined" in the previous
case. It must have been a fundamental and essential issue for the resolution of that
case.

5. Consistency of Decisions: It would be inconsistent or unfair for the party to take a

different position on the same issue in the current case compared to the previous case.
Case Law: In Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (1982), the
House of Lords held that issue estoppel would prevent a party from taking a different
position on the same issue in a subsequent case if it would be inconsistent or unfair. This
ensures that parties cannot change their legal stance to gain an advantage.