Palomares v The Thames Valley Police [1996] EWCA Civ 709 (11 October 1996)

Palomares v The Thames Valley Police [1996] EWCA Civ 709 (11 October 1996)

The trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the legal elements of malicious prosecution, particularly the relationship between honest belief and reasonable and probable cause, and failed to guide the jury on the proper basis for awarding damages for loss of employment. The jury's findings were inconsistent and not sustainable in law. A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred, requiring the verdict and judgment to be set aside and the matter to be retried.

Citation
[1996] EWCA Civ 709
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Theo Palomares; Defendant/appellant: The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Reading County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the jury and judgment set aside; retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, False Imprisonment, Damages, Police Misconduct, Jury Directions
Tort Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution False Imprisonment Damages Police Misconduct Jury Directions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theo Palomares

Plaintiff/respondent

The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Reading County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's findings on malicious prosecution and false imprisonment were legally sustainable given the directions and evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the elements of malicious prosecution and the relationship between honest belief and reasonable and probable cause
  3. 3 Whether the damages awarded, particularly for loss of employment, were legally justified

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the legal elements of malicious prosecution, particularly the relationship between honest belief and reasonable and probable cause, and failed to guide the jury on the proper basis for awarding damages for loss of employment. The jury's findings were inconsistent and not sustainable in law. A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred, requiring the verdict and judgment to be set aside and the matter to be retried.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the jury and judgment set aside; retrial ordered.

Orders

  • Decision of the jury and judgment set aside
  • Matter to be retried