Thomas v Payet (8 of 2003) [2005] SCSC 40 (26 June 2005)

Thomas v Payet (8 of 2003) [2005] SCSC 40 (26 June 2005)

The appellant acted bona fide and with reasonable grounds in making the complaint; there was no evidence of malice or falsehood. Therefore, no faute was committed and the appellant is not liable for damages.

Citation
[2005] SCSC 40
Parties
Appellant: Marc Donald Thomas; Respondent: Frank Payet
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
26 June 2005
Case Number
8 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Senior Magistrate set aside.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Damages, Faute, Costs, Malicious Prosecution
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Abuse of Process Damages Faute Costs Malicious Prosecution

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marc Donald Thomas

Appellant

Frank Payet

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was liable for damages arising from a dismissed complaint under Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether the respondent could claim damages after the Magistrate's Court made no order as to costs
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's actions constituted a 'faute' in law

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant acted bona fide and with reasonable grounds in making the complaint; there was no evidence of malice or falsehood. Therefore, no faute was committed and the appellant is not liable for damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Senior Magistrate set aside.

Orders

  • Judgment of the Learned Senior Magistrate set aside
  • No order as to costs