Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This clear and original book provides a much-needed analysis of the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process as applied to foreign judgments recognized in England for their preclusive effect. In particular, it examines the four preclusive pleas which are encountered in practice, namely: (i) cause of action estoppel; (ii) issue estoppel; (iii) former recovery per section 34 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982; and (iv) the rule in Henderson v Henderson. So far as foreign judgments are concerned, the book examines separately the preclusive effects of foreign judgments recognized according to the English common law and related statutory rules, and foreign judgments which the English courts are obliged to recognize under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions. It also includes a discussion of the preclusive effects of judgments recognized under the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in civil and commercial matters. Although the complex and technical doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process are well known in the context of domestic judicial decisions, little has hitherto been written analysing how these doctrines apply when the judgment emanates from a foreign court. It is not surprising, therefore, that this area of law has been frequently confused and mis-applied. And yet the recognition of foreign judgments for preclusive purposes is an increasingly important area for practitioners and academics - especially for those interested in international commercial litigation, and not least given the important treaty developments that are occurring. For these reasons, this book is a very timely work. Written with a practitioner focus, it includes extensive references to res judicata authorities in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".