header-logo header-logo

23 July 2009
Issue: 7379 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Autrefois acquit

Coke-Wallis v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2009] EWCA Civ 730; [2009] All ER (D) 147 (Jul)

For the doctrine of autrefois acquit to apply, it was necessary that the accused should have been put in peril of conviction for the same offence as that with which he was then charged. The word “offence” embraced both the facts which constituted the crime and the legal characteristics which made it an offence. For the doctrine to apply, it would have to be the same offence both in fact and law, or offences which were substantially the same. Legal characteristics were precise things and were either the same or not. Autrefois acquit should be kept within limits that were precise.

There was a public interest in the finality of litigation and in a defendant not being vexed twice in the same matter; but that whether an action was an abuse of process as offending against the public interests involved all the facts of the case, the crucial question being whether the claimant was in all the circumstances misusing or abusing the process of the court. The court required parties to litigation to bring forward their whole case, and would not permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in subsequent proceedings which were not brought forward in the first proceedings only because they had, from negligence, inadvertence or even accident, omitted part of their case.

Issue: 7379 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll