QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SILBER
| THE SZOMBATHELY CITY COURT
THE SOPRON CITY COURT
THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF SZOMBATHELY
(THREE HUNGARIAN JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
|- and -
Ben Brandon (instructed by Kamrans, Sols) for Roland Fenyvesi
Rosemary Davidson (instructed by Lawrence & Co, Sols) for Kalman Fenyvesi
Hearing dates: 21/O1/2009
Crown Copyright ©
"The rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 is very well known. It requires the parties, when a matter becomes the subject of litigation between them in a court of competent jurisdiction, to bring their whole case before the court so that all aspects of it may be finally decided (subject, of course, to any appeal) once and for all. In the absence of special circumstances, the parties cannot return to the court to advance arguments, claims or defences which they could have put forward for decision on the first occasion but failed to raise. The rule is not based on the doctrine of res judicata in a narrow sense, nor even on any strict doctrine of issue or cause of action estoppel. It is a rule of public policy based on the desirability, in the general interest as well as that of the parties themselves, that litigation should not drag on for ever and that a defendant should not be oppressed by successive suits when one would do. That is the abuse at which the rule is directed."
This passage concerns a rule of civil litigation which at first blush is somewhat removed from the central subject of this appeal. But the policy behind the rule in Henderson v Henderson has quite close affinity with the policy which lies behind authorities and statutes which regulate the admission on an appeal of evidence which one or other of the parties did not adduce at first instance.
The extradition hearing
The fresh evidence
The Extradition Act 2003
"(a) evidence is available that was not available at the extradition hearing;
(b) the evidence would have resulted in the judge deciding the relevant question differently ."
so that he would not have been required to order the respondents' discharge.