Willers v Joyce & Anor (Re: Gubay (deceased) No 2) [2016] UKSC 44 (20 July 2016)

[Legal Beagles]

More...

[R0b]

Re: Willers v Joyce & Anor (Re: Gubay (deceased) No 2) [2016] UKSC 44 (20 July 2016)

The appellant brought a claim for malicious prosecution. The respondent had dismissed him and brought proceedings against him for alleged breach of contractual and fiduciary duties. He claimed that this was part of a campaign by the respondents to do him harm. The Supreme Court considered whether the tort of malicious prosecution included the prosecution of civil proceedings. The Court allowed the appeal by a majority of 5-4. It was instinctively unjust for a person to suffer injury as a result of the malicious prosecution for which there was no reasonable ground, and yet not be entitled to compensation for the injury intentionally caused by the person responsible for it. An action for malicious prosecution did not amount to a collateral attack on the outcome of the first proceedings.

It would seem that, on first view the Supreme Court has accepted that there can be a claim for malicious prosecution in civil proceedings. I will digest this over the weekend but no doubt commentary will come out over the next week or so.
@nemesis45 @Amethyst

[Openlaw15]

Re: Willers v Joyce & Anor (Re: Gubay (deceased) No 2) [2016] UKSC 44 (20 July 2016)

It would seem that, on first view the Supreme Court has accepted that there can be a claim for malicious prosecution in civil proceedings. I will digest this over the weekend but no doubt commentary will come out over the next week or so.
@nemesis45 @Amethyst

In short - Privy Council (PC) can 'direct' Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on a point of law if invited by the claimant/ respondent to do so. High Court (non appellate, ie court of first instance) can leap-frog a claimant/ respondent to Supreme Court. High Court is not bound by the Privy Counsel if already bound by higher courts but may follow its PC) direction.

No, the case does not make new law for bringing claims of malicious prosecution as a tort (civil). The UKSC merely considers the jurisdiction of the Privy Council, does not bind lower courts when already bound by superior courts (ie High Court (appellate; Court of Appeal; Supreme Court), through the doctrine of binding precedent, ie stare decisis. The Court of first instance is not bound by the Privy Council but should hold its (Privy Council's) opinion of 'great weight' and 'persuasive.' If the High Court is already bound by a superior court (ie previous decision of Court of Appeal or House of Lords/ Supreme Court), and does not believe the Supreme Court will follow an early 'Privy Counsel' decision as 'a fore-gone conclusion, it is already bound so will not follow the Privy Council. The High Court in these circumstance is permitted to grant a 'leapfrog certificate' (ie a legal jump over the Court of Appeal) to the Supreme Court. The House of Lord/ Supreme Court is bound by its previous decision unless it's right to depart from them: 1966 practice statement.

[R0b]

Re: Willers v Joyce & Anor (Re: Gubay (deceased) No 2) [2016] UKSC 44 (20 July 2016)

OL I have only read a few pages but I believe there were two separate questions, firstly whether a case of malicious prosecution could be brought under civil proceedings and whether or not as you say the lower court can follow a PC decision that reaches a different conclusion to that of the House of Lords / Supreme Court.

The Actual case was first brought at the High Court not the Privy Council. As there were conflicting decisions in which some cases accepted malicious prosecution following the privy council and other cases following the house of lords, the HC granted a leapfrog certificate to the Supreme Court.

Not sure how you have come to the conclusion that this case solely relates to the decision of privy councils when the case didn't even stem from the privy council in the first place. Even the first paragraph of the judgment confirms there is two questions that arise:

This appeal raises the question whether the tort of malicious prosecutionincludes the prosecution of civil proceedings. It also raises a question about whetherand in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Councilwhich has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or theSupreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. The second question isthe subject of a separate judgment: [2016] UKSC 44.

There are two judgments for this case, but happy to be corrected, I think you are reading the wrong judgment, the malicious prosecution is [2016] UKSC 43

[Openlaw15]

Re: Willers v Joyce & Anor (Re: Gubay (deceased) No 2) [2016] UKSC 44 (20 July 2016)

OL I have only read a few pages but I believe there were two separate questions, firstly whether a case of malicious prosecution could be brought under civil proceedings and whether or not as you say the lower court can follow a PC decision that reaches a different conclusion to that of the House of Lords / Supreme Court.

The Actual case was first brought at the High Court not the Privy Council. As there were conflicting decisions in which some cases accepted malicious prosecution following the privy council and other cases following the house of lords, the HC granted a leapfrog certificate to the Supreme Court.

Not sure how you have come to the conclusion that this case solely relates to the decision of privy councils when the case didn't even stem from the privy council in the first place. Even the first paragraph of the judgment confirms there is two questions that arise:



There are two judgments for this case, but happy to be corrected, I think you are reading the wrong judgment, the malicious prosecution is [2016] UKSC 43

Update Rob, it's a well established tort already on ancient precedents, going back to about the 1800s. UKSC merely clarified the law, it would seem, to the benefit of the director where a company maliciously made a prosecution; lots of separate elements required but mainly 'reasonable an probable' cause...so it's rather difficult to prove. This is probably why the PC made a relevant decision, which the high court should have followed in my view, as it seems reasonable it would have been a foreseeable foregone conclusion by the UKSC, that it would follow PC, and did so.

Thanks, Rob. Yep you never provided the citation originally so I was reading the wrong UKSC decision originally (although expected another appeal or something on the point of law for malicious prosecution). Malicious prosecution in [2016] UKSC 43 reads as, yes a tort can be brought. It's not a duty of care type liability in that the tort does not afford any person a duty of care for malicious prosecution itself. So, it's supposedly not easy in that there will be no floodgate claim scenarios. It sounds to me pretty much like tort and criminal negligence rolled into one nevertheless ie must be sufficiently serious to justify criminal liability without the duty or breach steps. The inference is that there's a leap-frog past tort's usual 1) duty of care, 2) breach, and 3) causation, to an automatic 4) sufficiently serious to justify criminal liability for malicious prosecution. Wow, isn't this an eye opener for tort and criminal lawyers.

[nemesis45]

Re: Willers v Joyce & Anor (Re: Gubay (deceased) No 2) [2016] UKSC 44 (20 July 2016)

It would seem that, on first view the Supreme Court has accepted that there can be a claim for malicious prosecution in civil proceedings. I will digest this over the weekend but no doubt commentary will come out over the next week or so.
@nemesis45 @Amethyst

Haven't had time to read yet, but will over the weekend.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

It would seem that, on first view the Supreme Court has accepted that there can be a claim for malicious prosecution in civil proceedings. I will digest this over the weekend but no doubt commentary will come out over the next week or so.
@nemesis45 @Amethyst

Haven't had time to read yet, but will over the weekend.

nem