References: [1824] EngR 512, (1824) 2 B & C 693, (1824) 107 ER 541
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Bayley J
It is a good defence to an action for a malicious arrest, that the defendant, when he caused the plaintiff to be arrested, acted bona fide upon the opinion of a legal adviser of competent skill and ability, and believed that he had a good cause of action against the plaintiff. But where it appeared that the party was influenced by an indirect motive in making the arrest, it was held to be properly left to the jury to consider whether he acted bona fide upon the opinion of his legal adviser, believing that he had a good cause of action.
Bayley J said: ‘if a party lays all the facts of his case fairly before counsel, and acts bona fide on the opinion given by that counsel (however erroneous that opinion may be) he is not liable to an action.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Howarth -v- Gwent Constabulary and Another QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2836 (QB))
The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the defendant. He had been charged with perverting the course of justice. He had worked for a firm of solicitors specialising in defending road traffic prosecutions. . .
