A litigant contesting a Res Judicata plea can take several practical steps to demonstrate that the doctrine does not apply to their case. They may begin by showing that the parties are different or not litigating under the same title, thereby breaking the identity requirement. Next, they can argue that the issues or causes of action are distinct, highlighting factual or legal differences between the two cases. If the earlier case was not decided on merits—for example, dismissed for default, limitation, or lack of prosecution—the litigant can stress that such a judgment does not bar a fresh suit. Another strong argument is to point out jurisdictional defects in the earlier case, proving that the previous court lacked authority to decide the matter. Finally, the litigant can rely on a material change in facts or law—such as new evidence, new rights arising, or legislative amendments—to establish that the new case is independent. By raising these points systematically, a litigant can effectively challenge the application of Res Judicata.
