Get your ducks in a row – bring all elements of a claim together

Insights /

An important reminder from the High Court regarding res judicata and merger.

In the judgment in Zavarco PLC v Tan Sri Syed Mohd Yusof Bin Tun Syed Nasir1, Chief Master Marsh held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim before it; the claimant’s cause of action merged in a judgment and order made in proceedings brought in 20162 (the “2016 Proceedings”). As such, the claimant’s cause of action had been extinguished.

The 2016 Proceedings

The central issue was whether the defendant (Mr Nasir) is or was obliged to pay up the 360 million shares he received on the incorporation of the claimant (Zavarco Plc) in cash, or whether it was agreed or arranged that the par value would be satisfied by the transfer to the claimant of shares in another company and, if so, what the legal consequences of that might be. It was common ground that the defendant’s shares were never paid up in cash.

The claimant served a valid call notice on the defendant on 5 June 2015 for payment. The defendant did not pay, disputing his liability to do so. The claimant then served a valid Notice of Intended Forfeiture on 15 June 2016, but no action had been taken on that pending the outcome of the 2016 Proceedings, which concerned requests for declaratory relief (and only declaratory relief) relating to the claimant’s entitlement to proceed to forfeit the shares.

That defendant’s defence in the 2016 Proceedings was dismissed and, as a result, the claimant forfeited the defendant’s shares. Despite this, under the company’s articles of association (the “Articles”), the defendant remained liable to the claimant as a debtor for the nominal value of the shares.

The High Court made two declarations in the 2016 proceedings:

  1. The defendant’s shares in the claimant had not been paid; and
  2. The shares could be forfeited by the company (the claimant having taken steps under the Articles to call for payment and payment not having been made).

The 2018 Proceedings

The claimant brought a second set of proceedings in 2018 (the “2018 Proceedings”), for which it obtained permission to serve on the defendant in Singapore.

The claimant sought recovery from the defendant of €36 million (plus interest) as a debt. The claimant’s case in outline was described by Chief Master Marsh as:

  1. the defendant formerly held shares in the claimant;
  2. he was required to pay for the shares in cash;
  3. he has failed to pay for them; and
  4. he is, despite the shares having been forfeited, liable to the claimant as a debtor for the nominal value of the shares, which is €36 million.

It should be noted that the claimant did not put forward any reason why it could not include a claim for payment in the 2016 Proceedings, nor did it assert that the 2016 Proceedings concerned preliminary issues. It merely argued that the purpose of the 2016 proceedings was to provide the claimant with the confidence it had the legal right to forfeit the shares before taking that action.

Service of the claim in the 2018 Proceedings was followed by the defendant’s application under CPR 11.1, disputing that the court had jurisdiction to try the claim or, alternatively, that if the court had jurisdiction it should not exercise it. The defendant’s principal contention was that the determination of the 2016 Proceedings and accompanying order resulted in the claim being extinguished by merger.

Merger, and res judicata, are common law doctrines, each of which have the same ultimate effect and “which preclude a person who has obtained a decision from one court or tribunal from bringing a claim before another court or tribunal for the same complaint”3. Res judicata prevents inconsistent decisions by preventing already decided issues from being reconsidered, and merger prevents a party from obtaining different or additional remedies in respect of causes of action already extinguished by a prior judgment.

The basis of the claim for merger here was that in both the 2016 and 2018 Proceedings the parties, facts pleaded, and causes of action, were identical.

Decision in the 2018 Proceedings

Having considered the key authorities and practitioners’ texts on res judicata and merger, Chief Master Marsh agreed with submissions made by the defendant and that the necessary elements of merger had been satisfied.

Notwithstanding the view expressed in Spencer Bower & Handley (that the doctrine of merger does not apply in the case of a declaratory judgment), Chief Master Marsh held that whilst a declaration may not lead to merger in every case, it could do if the cause of action in both claims is the same, having in mind the substance of those claims.


Although res judicata and merger will depend on the nature of a claim and the terms of any declaration, the outcome of the 2018 Proceedings serves as an important warning to potential/existing claimants to ensure they bring all claims together. The effect of merger is to extinguish the cause of action once a judgment is made, ensuring there is no second bite of the cherry.

Chief Master Marsh refers to a “powerful twofold rationale” for the doctrines of merger and res judicata: first, “the public interest in finality of litigation rather than the achievement of justice as between the individual litigantsand second, the private interest; that “it is unjust for a man to be vexed twice with litigation on the same subject matter”.5

1 [2019] EWHC 1837 (Ch).

2 [2017] EWHC 2877 (Ch).

3 Per Arnold LJ in Clark v In Focus Asset Management [2014] 1 WLR 2502.

4 Per Lord Goff of Chieveley in Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (No. 2) [1998] AC 878, 903).

5 Per Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C in Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc [1989] Ch 63, 69.

Mette Duffy

Mette Duffy Managing Associate

Related sectors:

Related news & insights

Insights / Climate Change Litigation Continueth – The Scottish Case: Greenpeace v. BEIS and the OGA (and BP too)

15-10-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

The Scottish Court of Session has declared that dealing with the global environmental impact of the consumption of oil is a political matter for the UK Government, not a legal issue for the UK Courts in considering the validity of approval to drill new oil wells in a single field.

Climate Change Litigation Continueth – The Scottish Case: Greenpeace v. BEIS and the OGA (and BP too)

News / AfCFTA and Energy & Infrastructure

11-10-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure, Maritime

This article is the third in a series of articles looking at the impact of the African Continental Free Trade Area (the “AfCFTA”) on various practice areas and industry sectors that our clients operate in. This article focuses on Energy and Infrastructure and addresses some of the key questions our clients have asked us.

AfCFTA and Energy & Infrastructure

Insights / Supreme Court clarifies lawful act of duress

21-09-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

In Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Rev 2) [2019] EWCA Civ 828, the Supreme Court confirmed the existence of the doctrine of ‘lawful act duress’ under English law and its limited scope in commercial transactions.

Supreme Court clarifies lawful act of duress

News / Shell agrees pay out to Nigerian community to settle long-running oil spill dispute

17-08-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

In 1991, the Ejama-Ebubu people began a legal campaign to hold Shell Nigeria (“Shell”) accountable for an oil spill that occurred in 1970. Shell accepted that these oil spills had occurred, but argued that these were caused by “third parties” during the Biafran war, for which Shell should not be held liable. Almost 20 years later, in 2010, a Nigerian Federal court ordered Shell to pay 17 billion naira to the Ejama-Ebubu community. Shell has unsuccessfully attempted to challenge this ruling over several years and, in November 2020, the Nigerian Supreme Court ruled that Shell could no longer appeal the decision.

Shell agrees pay out to Nigerian community to settle long-running oil spill dispute

News / The Bribery Act: ten years on

19-07-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

The Bribery Act: ten years on

Quick links

The Legal 500 2021

“Very available and responsive to company developments in real time. Frank, clear advice – not just the ‘easy’ answer.”

The Legal 500 2022

“The solicitors who have handled our employment related issues are of the highest quality in terms of their specialist area of expertise, their professionalism and their approach to us as clients and as people. Special mention has to be made of Laura Livingstone. Laura became a key member of our team and felt more like a colleague than an external adviser – a colleague you could rely upon. Laura’s attention to detail, professionalism and responsiveness was second to none. Laura has come to know and understand us as individuals and this has enabled her to personalise her advice and even sometimes to preempt our future requirements. We have a very special and extremely valuable relationship with her and the firm.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“Ince are an excellent “fit” with our specific needs. The firm has consistently provided a broad range of personnel-related advice and in our experience that advice has been consistently of the very highest professional standard: it has been timely, comprehensive, accurate and at a cost which is commensurate with the budget of an organisation of our size.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“The firm has an unusually high degree of insight into the practices and policies required by the Gambling Commission as regards compliance with its own requirements and conditions – particularly Andrew Tait, derived from his previous in-house experience.”

- The Legal 500