Henderson v Henderson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[1843] UKPC 6
| Henderson v Henderson | |
|---|---|
 Colonial Canada. | |
| Court | Court of Chancery |
| Full case name | Bethel Henderson v Elizabeth Henderson and Others |
| Decided | 20 July 1843 |
| Citations | (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313 [1843] UKPC 6 |
| Transcript | CommonLII |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Henderson v Henderson [1843] UKPC 6 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Sir James Wigram, VC |
| Keywords | |
| Issue estoppel | |
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313[1] was a decision of the English Court of Chancery which confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought properly to have raised in a previous action. The case remains good law, and is still cited as authority for the original principle today.[2][3]
In 1808 two brothers, Bethel and Jordan Henderson, became partners in their father's business which had operations in both Bristol and Newfoundland. In 1817 the father, William Henderson, left the business and subsequently (on a date not recorded in the case) died. Subsequently, in March 1830 Jordan Henderson also died, and he was survived by his widow, Elizabeth Henderson and their children, Joanna and William.[1]
Jordan Henderson died intestate and his wife was appointed as his administrator. In 1832, Elizabeth Henderson brought legal proceedings in the Colonial Court in Newfoundland against her former brother-in-law, Bethel, alleging that he had not paid certain sums to her and her children which were due under the will of the older William Henderson. She also brought separate proceedings claiming he had failed to provide an account as executor of the will of the older William Henderson, and that he had failed to account for the interest in the partnership held by her late husband. In the end three sets of proceedings were joined, heard and determined by the courts in Newfoundland, and Bethel Henderson was ordered to pay the sum of £26,650 to his former sister-in-law and her family.
Elizabeth Henderson then brought subsequent proceedings in England to try and enforce the debt. In those proceedings Bethel Henderson sought to resist the claim, alleging that the decree of the Colonial Court was irregular. He further alleged that in fact it was the late Jordan Henderson who had drawn sums from the partnership in excess of his entitlement, and that accordingly it was Elizabeth Henderson who (as administrator of Jordan's estate) owed money to him. However, Bethel Henderson had not sought to advance any of these claims in the legal proceedings in Newfoundland.