Tweet
For those who may be interested to know the Supreme Court is due to hear an appeal this month from the High Court leapfrogging the Court of Appeal (which unusually was recommended by the judge) which relates to whether or not there is a tort for malicious prosecution in civil proceedings in English law.
Background
Malicious prosecution has only ever been available in criminal proceedings and in 2001, the HoL in Gregory v Portsmouth Council suggested that it is not available in civil proceedings, effectively confirming the old case of Quartz Hill Consolidated v Eyre 1883. Fast forward 2013, The Privy Council (which is made up of Supreme Court Justices and other senior judges) ruled in Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor General Insurance that there was in fact a tort of malicious prosecution, although not unanimous decision. However, the High Court in Willers v Gaubay 2015 disagreed with the Privy Council's decision and said it was bound by the decisions in Gregory and Quartz.
Interestingly, 7 Justices will be hearing this case, of which Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson are on there who all heard the case of Crawford Adjusters (Sumption and Neuberger dissented). If the Supreme Court does in fact confirm that there is a tort of malicious prosecution then that could have consequences for those who hastily commence proceedings, particular companies who buy debt without having the requisite evidence resulting in defendants counterclaiming for malicious prosecution.
I suspect we will already know the decisions of the 5 Justices on the Crawford Adjusters case, it will be interesting to hear the other 2 decisions.
Supreme Court Link Here
Background
Malicious prosecution has only ever been available in criminal proceedings and in 2001, the HoL in Gregory v Portsmouth Council suggested that it is not available in civil proceedings, effectively confirming the old case of Quartz Hill Consolidated v Eyre 1883. Fast forward 2013, The Privy Council (which is made up of Supreme Court Justices and other senior judges) ruled in Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor General Insurance that there was in fact a tort of malicious prosecution, although not unanimous decision. However, the High Court in Willers v Gaubay 2015 disagreed with the Privy Council's decision and said it was bound by the decisions in Gregory and Quartz.
Interestingly, 7 Justices will be hearing this case, of which Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson are on there who all heard the case of Crawford Adjusters (Sumption and Neuberger dissented). If the Supreme Court does in fact confirm that there is a tort of malicious prosecution then that could have consequences for those who hastily commence proceedings, particular companies who buy debt without having the requisite evidence resulting in defendants counterclaiming for malicious prosecution.
I suspect we will already know the decisions of the 5 Justices on the Crawford Adjusters case, it will be interesting to hear the other 2 decisions.
Supreme Court Link Here
