D had maliciously caused C to be indicted for riot. Following his acquittal C sued D for malicious prosecution. The court affirmed the judgment which had been given for C.
Held: It was irrelevant that D had not been part of a conspiracy. An action lies for a malicious indictment which puts the party to expence though the charge it contains neither scandalizes him or endangers his personal security.
The Chief Justice observed, subject to what was later added, that, where a civil action was sued without cause, no action would lie in favour of the successful defendant; for, in civil as opposed to in criminal proceedings, claimants had been required to post pledges which could be drawn down in favour of victims of false claims and, more recently, they could be ordered to pay costs to their victims directly. He added that ‘if A sues an action against B for mere vexation, in some cases upon particular damage B may have an action; but it is not enough to say that A sued him falso et malitiose, but he must show the matter of the grievance specially, so that it may appear to the Court to be manifestly vexatious’.
 EngR 2096, (1792) 1 Ld Raym 374, (1792) 91 ER 1147
England and Wales
See Also – Savile v Roberts 1795
Case for causing and maliciously procuring the plaintiff to be indicted for a riot. It was held by Holt, Chief Justice, it is not sufficient that the plaintiff prove he was innocent but he must prove express malice in the defendant; he likewise . .
Cited – Crawford Adjusters and Others v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd and Another PC 13-Jun-2013
(Cayman Islands) A hurricane had damaged property insured by the respondent company. The company employed the appellant as loss adjustor, but came to suspect advance payments recommended by him, and eventually claimed damages for deceit and . .
Cited – Williamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Sep-2014
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant had been held after arrest on suspicion of theft. He was held for several months before the case was dismissed, the posecution having made no apparent attempt to further the prosecution. He appealed against refusal . .
Cited – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.360308