Application of the estoppel rule in procedural relations

The subject. The article reveals the concept of “estoppel” as a mechanism prohibiting the change of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time.

The purpose of the paper is to identify is it possible to use estoppel in procedural relations in Russia.

Methodology. The author uses the methods of the analysis of legal literature as well as the formal-legal interpretation of the Commercial Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

The main results and scope of their application. The development of civil and civil procedural legal relations virtually requires the study and application of the doctrinal and practice rules that are new for Russia, but well-known abroad. Among such is the rule of estoppel. It presents a mechanism that prohibits changing of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The rule of estoppel attracts the attention of specialists in both civil and civil procedural law, but, despite having the same name, the rule possesses different qualities in substantive and procedural law. Thus, in procedural relations it is necessary to take into account that the court is a necessary participant of any civil procedural relationship. The actions of the parties in themselves do not give rise to any legal consequences; for they must be allowed (sanctioned) by the court.

The main difficulty concerns not with the application of the norms fixing the institute of estoppel, but with the court’s qualification of the case in fact as an estoppel situation. The court should receive a clear and unambiguous position from the party and fix it. Such a fixation is possible, in particular, in a decision that has entered into legal force. The estoppel by judgment used in these cases differs from other kinds of estoppel in that it prevents parties from challenging the circumstances established in a court decision. It is not connected to the actions of the party, which during the whole process defended the position opposite to that which was ultimately put by the court into the basis of the decision. In the future, a party to a new process may reiterate the same facts and circumstances that it asserted earlier. Thus, her position changes in comparison not with her own previous behavior, but rather with a valid judicial decision, which she must observe.

Conclusions. The Russian legislation contains certain provisions allowing for the use of estoppel rule in procedural relations: these are, for example, rules on procedural agreements and rules concerning validity of a court decision. However, considering the specifics of procedural legal relations and the role of the court within them, and taking into account the procedural rights of the parties, the use of estoppel is only possible with the help of legally established methods for the fixation of the participant’s position and his “changing behavior”.

Estoppel, procedural estoppel, estoppel by judgment, prohibition of objections, position of the party to the case, bona fides of the parties to a transaction, legal force of a judicial decision, res judicata

1. Terekhov V.V. Legal force of a judicial decision: spatial and temporal limits. Moscow, Yurlitinform Publ., 2015. 223 p. (in Russ.).

2. Herman H. The Law of Estoppel. Albany, 1871. 622 p.

3. Yudin A.V. The use of rules on liability for abuse of procedural rights by arbitration courts. Pravo i ekonomika, 2006, no. 12, pp. 106–113. (in Russ.).

4. Kudryavtseva E.V. Civil proceedings in England. Moscow, Gorodets Publ., 2008. 320 p. (in Russ.).

5. Kudryavtseva E.V. The judgment in the English civil procedure. Moscow, Gorodets Publ., 1998. 143 p. (in Russ.).

6. Eremenko V.I. On development prospects of case law in Russia. Advokat, 2013, no. 6, pp. 17–26. (in Russ.).

7. Sedova Zh.I. Kinds of estoppel in the foreign doctrine and the possibility of their application in various branches of law. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2018, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 41–61. (in Russ.).

8. Sedova Zh.I., Zaitseva N.V. The principle of estoppel and waiver of rights in the commercial turnover of the Russian Federation. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2014. 157 p. (in Russ.).

9. Koblov A.S. Estoppel rule in Russian law: problems and prospects of development. Zakon, 2012, no. 5, pp. 212–219. (in Russ.).

10. Tchernykh I.I. Estoppel in Civil Justice. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2015, no. 12, pp. 81–88. (in Russ.).

11. Shemeneva O.N. The principle of estoppel and the requirement of good faith during evidentiary activities for civil cases. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2019, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 343–353. (in Russ.).

12. Shvarts M.Z. Some reflections on the estoppel institute. Arbitrazhnye spory, 2016, no. 1, pp. 95–99. (in Russ.).

13. Awtani V. Res Judicata and Estoppel, posted 22 July 2012, 8 p. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2115140. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2115140.