Chris Kidd Head of Shipbuilding and Offshore Construction, Joint Head of Energy & Infrastructure, Partner
Doctrine of merger does not apply where judgment is for declaratory relief only
Zavarco plc v Tan Sri Syed Mohd Yusof Bin Tun Syed Nasir  EWCA Civ 1217
The doctrine of merger treats a cause of action as extinguished once judgment has been given upon it; the Claimant’s sole right then becomes the right to enforce the judgment.
There was no decided case on whether this doctrine applies where a judgment is given for declaratory relief only, either in this country or in any other Commonwealth country, until Zavarco v Nasir recently determined this.
We previously reported on the 2019 order of Chief Master Marsh, in which he declared that the court had no jurisdiction and dismissed proceedings involving a claim for payment for shares (i.e. payment of a debt) on the basis that the doctrine of merger applied in the case of a prior declaratory judgment in respect of the same cause of action, thereby precluding a subsequent claim on the same cause of action for payment of a debt. Read our previous article here.
Chief Master Marsh reached his decision notwithstanding the view expressed since 1924 in editions of the leading practitioners‘ text Spencer Bower & Handley: Res Judicata (that the doctrine of merger does not apply in the case of a purely 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.
This matter came before the Court of Appeal in April 2021 and judgment was handed down in August 2021.
Court of Appeal
In considering the question of whether merger applies where the judgment is for declaratory relief only, Sir David Richards held that a declaration is a quite different remedy from judgment for a debt or damages. Whilst it makes sense to speak of a merger of a claim for a debt or damages, so creating “an obligation of a higher nature” (the lesser right being merged into the higher right in the form of a judgment), the same simply cannot be said of a purely declaratory judgment, which itself imposes no obligation but only confirms the obligation which already exists. The Court went as far as to say it found it:
“…hard, indeed I would say impossible, to think of a sound reason why a declaration of legal right or obligation should automatically bar a subsequent claim for enforceable relief”.
Sir David Richards stated that as the authorities demonstrate, merger is a very long standing doctrine of the common law and one which judgments of the early 19th century make clear was by then fully formed. Declaratory relief, on the other hand, is an equitable remedy, and declarations as a sole remedy were virtually unknown until the mid-nineteenth century. He said (of merger):
“…it is my view that the basis and development of the doctrine shows that it has no application at all to declarations...”
Whilst the issue of whether the doctrine of merger applies where the judgment is for declaratory relief only has now been clearly answered by the courts, it is important for those involved in dispute resolution to keep in mind the Court of Appeal’s comments on the potential relevance of other principles designed to prevent abuse of the court’s process: “…Of course, depending on the circumstances of the case, a claimant who first seeks only declaratory relief may be precluded, by the other principles designed to prevent abuse, from bringing further proceedings”.
Related news & insights
Insights / Court of Appeal overturns Unaoil bribery conviction
16-12-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure
On 10 December 2021, the Court of Appeal in R v Akle & Anor  EWCA Crim 1879 concluded that the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO) failure to disclose vital evidence had unfairly led to Ziad Akle (Akle) being convicted and jailed for bribery.
Insights / Is civil litigation a proper tool to stop climate change?
02-12-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure
The case of Saul Luciano Lliuya vs RWE - an example of a pending climate litigation case in Germany
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.
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.
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)  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.
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.