Mills v Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [2001] EWCA Civ 1346 (30 July 2001)

Mills v Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [2001] EWCA Civ 1346 (30 July 2001)

The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prosecution was brought without honest belief in its validity or for an improper motive. Internal doubts expressed years earlier did not displace the prima facie justification for prosecution under domestic law. No jury, properly directed, could find for the appellant on the pleaded material. Summary judgment for the respondent was appropriate.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1346
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Roger Ernest Mills; Defendant/respondent: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Misfeasance in Public Office, Export Regulation, Animal Welfare, EU Directives Compliance, Public Interest Immunity
Tort Law Administrative Law European Union Law Malicious Prosecution Misfeasance in Public Office Export Regulation Animal Welfare EU Directives Compliance +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Ernest Mills

Claimant/appellant

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution of the appellant was malicious and without honest belief in its validity
  2. 2 Whether internal doubts within the Ministry about the legality of the domestic legislation constituted evidence of malice
  3. 3 Whether the case should proceed to trial or be dismissed summarily under CPR Part 24

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prosecution was brought without honest belief in its validity or for an improper motive. Internal doubts expressed years earlier did not displace the prima facie justification for prosecution under domestic law. No jury, properly directed, could find for the appellant on the pleaded material. Summary judgment for the respondent was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs and amount to be determined by a costs judge