Judicial estoppel, doctrine of

2022 PLD 817 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Scope

When a party takes an inconsistent position in the same case or in a prior case, the principle of judicial estoppel applies

Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine which precludes a party from taking inconsistent positions before the Court

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel a court can stop a party from taking up contradictory stances if it is clearly inconsistent with the previous position taken by that party before another Court

When a party puts forth a position, as a matter of fact in one case and is successful in that assertion, that party is estopped from asserting a different position on the same facts in the second case.

2017 PLD 68 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Integrity of the judicial processNature of, and rationale for the principle of judicial estoppelEstoppel by inconsistent positions taken before judicial forumsApprobate and reprobateApplication of judicial estoppelScope

Fundamental duty of court to protect the integrity of the judicial process and a party could not approbate and reprobate at the same time

When a party took an inconsistent position in the same case or in a prior case, the principle of judicial estoppel should be applied

Judicial estoppel was an equitable doctrine, which precluded a party from taking inconsistent positions before the court and protected the integrity of the judicial system and not of the litigant

Principle of judicial estoppel sought to ensure respect for judicial proceedings and to avoid inconsistency and abuse of process

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, court could stop a party from taking up contradictory stances if it was clearly inconsistent with the previous position taken by that party before another Court

Application of judicial estoppel depended upon the facts and circumstances of each case and when a party put forth a position, as a matter of fact in one case and was successful in such an assertion, then that party was estopped from asserting a different position on the same facts in a second case

Party, who was to be estopped in the second case had to be the same party in the earlier case meaning thereby the party is the same in both cases

Issue for which the party was estopped from asserting its facts must have had some nexus in both proceedings and it was imperative that such equitable principle be applied so that a judicial process functions properly and effectively

Litigants must approach the Court in a truthful manner especially if the litigant party was the government

Party could always vigorously assert its position, but could not misrepresent the facts in order to gain some advantage in the process

When a party had formally asserted a certain version of the facts in litigation, he or she could not later change those facts because the initial version no longer suits him or her

For application of the principle of judicial estoppel, the Court must ascertain that a party had asserted a contradictory position before another Court which position was accepted by that Court

Party's later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position, and the courts should inquire whether the party had succeeded in persuading a court to accept its earlier position and it had to be determined whether the party seeking to assert the inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped

Party's change in its factual or legal position threatened to produce inconsistent decisions by the courts and therefore, the doctrine of judicial estoppel was necessary to protect the integrity of the court from the harm caused when a litigant engaged in cynical gamesmanship, achieving success on one position yet arguing a different position in another case to satisfy an exigency of the moment

Allowing a litigant to adopt contradictory positions in different courts would mean that one court was misled or perhaps defrauded.