The doctrine of res inter alios acta is a principle of fundamental justice, and therefore applies to Western law generally.
More broadly, the doctrine of res inter alios acta stands for the proposition that civil judgments are not admissible in subsequent proceedings involving different parties.
The State felt it could do so because a Rowbotham application is financially "means-tested", i.e. free defense is only granted to those who cannot afford their own lawyer, and that it argued Mr. Malik had lied about his finances in order to qualify for it.
But then, once out on bail, he'd applied for legal representation using a Rowbotham application (i.e. when it was to his advantage to appear poor), and there he'd claimed his assets were $0.
Mr. Malik's defense sought to utilize the doctrine of res inter alios acta to assert that the criminal proceeding couldn't be used in a civil suit to recoup the legal costs.
Mr. Malik relied upon the doctrine of res inter alios acta as it applies to excluding different matters (rather than persons, as was the case the initial example of "A" "B" and "C").
b) The issue of admissibility is separate and distinct from whether, once admitted, the prior decision is conclusive and binding c) The prejudiced party or parties will have an opportunity before the reviewing judge to lead evidence to contradict the earlier findings or lessen their weight unless precluded from doing so by the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppels or abuse of process.
In other words: a) The Judge in the civil suit still had to decide how much weight or relevance the Air India Bombings case and its findings had to the issue of legal fees and finances.