ABSTRACT
This paper compares English and German law in the context of a creditor who has recovered money judgment for part of a contractual debt, then seeks either to sue for the balance or to enforce a pre-existing security. Under English law, a second action for the balance is precluded by the doctrine of merger in rem judicatam, but this paper shows that merger is a procedural bar rather than a substantive rule that extinguishes the underlying debt – a point demonstrated most clearly by the position of a secured creditor post judgment. On the other hand, while German law is generally tolerant of claim splitting, it nevertheless contains several mechanisms – drawn from the res judicata doctrine and beyond – which may, in certain circumstances, preclude a second action for the balance. This comparative study reveals that, not only do the two systems diverge in how they secure finality in litigation, but they may also – at a more basic level – understand that very principle differently.
Jonathan LT Chu and Felix D Pollmann, Debt, Judgment, and Security: Finality in Litigation from an Anglo-German Perspective (2026) Oxford University Comparative Law Forum 1.
Leave a Reply