Determination of a Repeated Lawsuit

Cao sued Company X on the ground of a dispute over a contract of house transaction, and required Company X to assist him to handle the property registration procedures. The court of the first instance carried out mediation, and Company X agreed to assist Cao to handle the property registration procedures within 3 days after the mediation document became effective. Then the court of the first instance made a mediation letter. Subsequently, Company X applied for a retrial of the mediation letter on the ground that the contract should be invalid, and provided relevant evidence. The court of the second instance, Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court rejected Company X’s application. Later, Company X sued Cao on the ground of a dispute over a contract of house transaction, and applied to revoke the contract. The court of the first instance determined that the lawsuit is a repeated one, and rejected Company X’s claim. The court of the second instance upheld the original judgment.

Regarding the repeated lawsuit, the “Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Application of the “Civil Procedural Law” (hereinafter referred to as the “Interpretations”) stipulates specific provisions for different situations.

The first situation is a litigant files another lawsuit over a matter, for which a lawsuit has been withdrawn during the litigation process or after the ruling has come into legal effect. According to Article 147 of the “Interpretations”, if the following criteria are satisfied, it shall be deemed as a repeated lawsuit: (1) the litigants in the latter lawsuit and the former lawsuit are identical; (2) the latter lawsuit and the former lawsuit have the same subject matter of lawsuit; and (3) the claims in the latter lawsuit and the former lawsuit are identical, or the claims in the latter lawsuit essentially negate the outcome of the ruling of the former lawsuit. In the case in the beginning, the litigants are identical, the subject matter are the same, and the claims in the latter lawsuit essentially negate the mediation letter, so it was determined as a repeated lawsuit.

It is complicated to determine the 3 criteria in individual cases. From the perspective of judicial practice, the following standards are relatively clear.

1.The defendant and plaintiff have been exchanged, the number of the individuals of one party is the same, and the number of the individuals of another party has increased or decreased, since the civil legal relation has not been changed, the litigants of the two lawsuits shall be deemed as identical (Quoted from (2017) Zui Gao Fa Min Shen No.2064).

2.The same subject matter mainly refers to the scope of the civil legal relation and basic facts are the same (See (2018) Hu 01 Min Zhong No. 3304).

3. The court would determine whether the litigation request essentially negates the outcome of the ruling of the former lawsuit, by considering the basis of the specific litigation request and the basis of the claim. For example, in the case (2019) Hu 01 Min Zhong No.684, Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court points out that the first trial rejected the

applicant’s request for payment of the difference, but the litigant appealed for the compensation due to the counter party’s breach of contract, so the appeal had not negated the outcome of the ruling of the former lawsuit.

The second situation is that upon consent by other litigants, the plaintiff in the original trial applies for withdrawal of appeal during the procedures of second instance, and then files a new lawsuit. According to Article 338 of the “Interpretations”, the court shall not accept the new lawsuit. The reason is that the court has heard the trial and made a ruling in the process of the first instance, if the litigant waived its right to obtain judicial relief in the second instance, such litigant should not be given additional opportunities for judicial relief.

It is worth to be noted that there are exceptions on the handling of the repeated lawsuit. According to Article 248 of the “Interpretations” where a litigant files another lawsuit due to occurrence of new facts after a ruling has come into legal effect, the People’s Court shall accept the lawsuit pursuant to the law. The reason is that the determination of a judgment is based on the status of a civil legal relation, and the determination shall be only adjudicative on matters that occurred before the reference time. The new facts occurred after the reference time shall not be adjudicated by the determination, and the litigant may file a new lawsuit (Quoted from (2019) Jin Min Zhong No.276). Therefore, in judicial practice, the “new facts” refer to the facts occurred after the original ruling has come into legal effect; the new facts shall not be the facts which have not been identified or mentioned in the original ruling; or the new facts shall not be the facts which have not been raised by litigants in the original trial.