I have examined the pleadings in the 1980 and 1981 actions, and I am satisfied that they are identical for all practical purposes. There may be minor variations, but I am satisfied that the judgment of Fawcus J. must be taken to mean that all facts crucial to the first action have not been established, or that the court has refused to grant any relief. Alternatively, if there are any facts or causes of action in the 1981 action which were not alleged in the 1980 action then they are so closely identified with the subject-matter of the earlier litigation that they properly belong to it, and the right to assert them in support of a fresh action is precluded by the principle expressed in Henderson v. Henderson.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.