Willers v Gubay [2015] EWHC 1315 (Ch) (15 May 2015)

Willers v Gubay [2015] EWHC 1315 (Ch) (15 May 2015)

The High Court is bound by the House of Lords' decision in Gregory v Portsmouth City Council, which holds that the tort of malicious prosecution does not generally extend to civil proceedings. The Privy Council's decision in Crawford Adjusters, although persuasive, does not override this binding authority, and the circumstances are not exceptional such that the Supreme Court would be bound to follow Crawford Adjusters. Therefore, the claim for malicious prosecution of civil proceedings must be struck out.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1315 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Peter Willers; Defendant: Albert Gubay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim (cpr Part 3.4(2)(a))
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Doctrine of Precedent, Strike Out Applications
Tort Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Abuse of Process Doctrine of Precedent Strike Out Applications

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Willers

Claimant

Albert Gubay

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim (cpr Part 3.4(2)(a))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings is recognised in English law
  2. 2 Whether the High Court is bound by the House of Lords decision in Gregory v Portsmouth City Council [2000] 1 AC 419
  3. 3 Whether the Privy Council decision in Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2014] AC 366 should be followed in preference to Gregory

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court is bound by the House of Lords' decision in Gregory v Portsmouth City Council, which holds that the tort of malicious prosecution does not generally extend to civil proceedings. The Privy Council's decision in Crawford Adjusters, although persuasive, does not override this binding authority, and the circumstances are not exceptional such that the Supreme Court would be bound to follow Crawford Adjusters. Therefore, the claim for malicious prosecution of civil proceedings must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • Claim for malicious prosecution of civil proceedings is struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a)