Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/702/2005 • CJ GE ATAS/702/2005 Généré par l'IA

Appellant's Liability and Issue Preclusion on Prior Finding Validity

Numéro de cause ATAS/702/2005
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The appellant, contesting the validity of a judgment based on prior related proceedings, argued that a specific finding in those earlier cases was not binding due to a procedural defect in the initiation of the prior actions. The court reasoned that the prior proceedings, which determined an essential issue concerning the appellant's liability, were conducted according to established rules and resulted in a final adjudication of that issue; therefore, the appellant was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion from relitigating the same matter in the current action, even if the formal procedural mechanism initiating the prior cases could be deemed defective, as the substance of the dispute was resolved.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Appellant's Liability and Issue Preclusion on Prior Finding Validity: The court reasoned that the prior proceedings, which determined an essential issue concerning the appellant's liability, were conducted according to established rules and resulted in a final adjudication of that issue; therefore, the appellant was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion from relitigating the same matter in the current action, even if the formal procedural mechanism initiating the prior cases could be deemed defective, as the substance of the dispute was resolved.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
antécédents objet du litige action en responsabilité vice de procédure formel arrêts en appréciation de validité droit de préemption légal

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

The court ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

     

   

$%&'($%))(  $*)%$%))(

 ! 

+  ,+ ! -  +! -! 

!.  %  ') / %))(

  

  0000000000 

 

 1 +  -!   2+! !" #  $ % & '#

           ! "#

- %(* -

  3 4 . ////////// 01-2'  3  ! ! ! 2  24   1' 511 ! 61'    1 2'  5  7 888 8  5 88  8 01-2' 9  !"3    5  1  1#    1 21#!:

512;  #1 21 "!#1 %,,+<     11 <    !2!  )= 61 %,,+    21    !" #  1;  !< >21? ?  !" #1 1 "1 &  2  1  *) 1 %,,+ :

   !2  %@ 61 %,,+<  !"< A  512!   1; & 1    1'<  2112 &  21     5 B )@  <  5       2!   2  #  1;  "1     ? 1< ;111 & 51#;11 !   :

 2   @ 61 %,,+<  1;  1#1 !  !" &    1  2!#  # 1     2 ; 2$1< & 1 ?  1;  "1   !1  2!   1;  !  51 #:

 2 21  %, 61 %,,+<  !"  21  1 2112  11 !  C 11  21 :

    111< 2 C  %@ D %,,@<  1;  ! 5! 1 !! 2!  < #1 6A!   #;  #1 !#!  "    :

 5  !2!   2'  1;  "1    1 C :

!   ?5>   5 B )@   1 A#1   2! 11  1# 0 3<  2! 2 C  2 ?   !2    1 5 ? 1    1#1< 2!  11  1#< 2  #     1 ! 6?5& 1    ? 1 :

5 52'<    111< 2   E ()+F%(%,,*<  ? 1   2!  & 1    1'  1;  !  ! ! 2 ! #  1;  "1  :

51  6 1"1 '   2  2!  2! 6?5&  ?  1;  "1  1   6A :

(%)*+(%,,+

- *(* -

 ! - 6   ,+ ! -  +! -! 

  7

873   9  :   2# &;% -"<

)B   21   2!  221 1  5 B )@  6?5& 1 6A! #  1;  "1     E ()+F%(%,,*B

%B !#  1    2!B

*B "  2 1   ?5 2# "     2! C   !1  &) = '   1"1 1 2 21 ! !  1; "!!  < 8$G1H$"?1 I< I,,@   <  1 >21B  !1  2 C  2A!B  !1 1 9 3 11? >  ? !11   !1 ; 1  1  2   !11  ?!: ;3 >2 2 ?  1" 1  1 2#1      !11: 3 2   1A      2!  B 81  !1   1  1 !!  !!!    3 ;3  3 1-<  1; "!!    2 2     1'    ?51 # ! 1#;B  !1    1   4  2#< ?1  61 < 11 ?  !11  ?!  5#22  ?   ! ! >2!1!   0 B )*%< ),I  ),J 3B

 A""1 9  !1  9

1 1 ; ;1

 21 "  2! C   1"1! > 2 1 2  A""

(%)*+(%,,+