Third-party revocation versus no repeat litigation

In its interpretations of the Civil Process Legislation, the Supreme People’s Court docket laid down the policies for how courts really should deal with 3rd-party revocation steps, where by a 3rd occasion in an unique trial makes a assert.

Generally, faced with a third-social gathering ask for to revoke a judgment, courts can respond in one of 3 methods:

• • If the plaintiff – a third get together in the initial demo – makes their very own claim that gets proven, the court may specifically proper any mistake and amend the first judgment.
  • If the plaintiff requests a revocation of the first judgment devoid of generating any claims of their individual, or that their individual statements can not be recognized, the court only revokes its former ruling.
  • If the plaintiff’s request to revoke the initial ruling can’t be set up, the court merely rejects it.

The concern is, beneath the second state of affairs, just after the first ruling is revoked by the court, will the unique plaintiff be allowed to re-file the lawsuit, seeing that their personal claims were not expressly turned down? The situation can be interpreted in another way.

Circumstance description

In 2005, she submitted a lawsuit requesting that the authentic estate business aid her with the transfer strategies, getting aid from the court. At the true estate centre where these strategies are handled, she was explained to that this could not commence owing to an present presale contract authentication connected to the exact house.

Ms Qian subsequently learned that the authentic estate firm had signed a presale agreement with a Ms Liu in 1998 for the home, which experienced been authenticated at a authentic estate exchange.

In 2015, Ms Liu submitted for 3rd-social gathering revocation action versus the serious estate company and Ms Qian, requesting revocation of the rulings in the original trial. The courtroom agreed to revoke the conclusion to help Ms Qian’s request for aid with the transfer technique.

In 2017, Ms Qian submitted a lawsuit from Ms Liu and the serious estate enterprise, requesting that: (1) the assets purchase contract concerning her and the authentic estate business be affirmed as legitimate (2) her deal be presented precedence above Ms Liu’s presale contract, and the house in problem be awarded to her (3) the actual estate corporation immediately help Ms Qian with the assets rights transfer course of action and (4) to recognise that Ms Liu’s deal does not choose outcome underneath China’s Assets Law.

Target of dispute

Does Ms Qian’s second lawsuit represent repeated litigation in relation to the same problem – or non bis in idem – due to the fact her initially 1 was revoked thanks to third-get together action?

Ultimate ruling

The courtroom of next instance made the decision that Ms Qian’s next and 3rd requests had been repeated from her former lawsuit, and the fourth one did not represent a proper lawsuit assert, rejecting all 3 and supporting only the very first ask for.

An evaluation

The core concern with this circumstance is that due to the fact Ms Qian experienced after submitted for procedural guidance, could the subsequent withdrawal of court support because of to Ms Liu’s third-get together claim be regarded as to have fixed Ms Qian’s original claim?

From a legislative standpoint, the function of 3rd-celebration revocation motion is to curb untrue litigation and protect the authentic legal rights of third functions, as nicely as eradicating any adverse consequences of untrue litigation and malicious mediation from civil lawsuits.

This obviously needs a substantive, rather of a mere procedural, courtroom response. Or else, Ms Qian would be equipped to reassert her primary claim, which goes in opposition to the legislative intention. Hence, the assert preclusion – or res judicata – in a 3rd-occasion revocation action must be based mostly on each the procedural and substantive pressure of the preceding selection.

From a procedural standpoint, a 3rd-celebration revocation motion, becoming a exclusive type of solution, differs from a retrial. For case in point, short article 42 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Trial Supervision Course of action of the Civil Procedure Law presents that, “where a third occasion applies for a retrial and the courtroom finds the 3rd social gathering not essentially a get together to the joint litigation, the court docket need to only judge on the legality of the objection lifted to the unique ruling, and either revoke the relevant conclusions or reject the request for a retrial the place the court docket decides to revoke any first rulings, the 3rd celebration and the events to the original demo ought to be notified of their possibility to file a new lawsuit.”

The third bash in these a revocation motion is not necessarily a celebration to the joint litigation, correctly fitting the description, but there is no guideline for notifying the parties of their appropriate to file a new suit. This in essence signifies that any courtroom determination to “revoke the original ruling” also arrives with “rejecting the assert of the unique plaintiff”. For this reason, Ms Qian can’t file a new fit except satisfying the over interpretation to the Civil Process Law.

Judging from the provisions for 3rd-get together revocation motion, legislators have taken into consideration courts’ wants to make substantive conclusions, notably where they permit 3rd get-togethers to make their personal claims in addition to requesting revocation, killing two birds with 1 stone.

By legislation, courts could specifically take care of the mistake in the first ruling upon examining and selecting to guidance all or some of the third-party claims, and these types of amended judgments could be appealed. This implies that courts have to occur to a new ruling immediately after substantively looking at both of those the original and the new lawsuits. We can infer that third-bash revocation action, in essence, is a retrial for the authentic assert and a new trial for any 3rd party’s separate promises on major of the primary.

To sum up, it would seem to be that Ms Qian’s 2nd lawsuit indeed falls under “repeated litigation”. As a court’s choice to revoke its first ruling inherently implies that it on top of that rejects the original plaintiff’s statements, the plaintiff can’t file an additional lawsuit by creating the identical statements.

Cycle Lam is a lover at ETR Legislation Company