Stapeley v Annetts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE WIDGERY,LORD JUSTICE CROSS |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Civ J1027-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 27 October 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Civ J1027-4
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal of plaintiff from Order of Mr. Justice Cooke, London, dated June 25th, 1969.
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Widgery and
Lord Justice Cross
Mr. S. BRODIE (instructed by Messrs. D.J. Griffiths & Co., Bromley, Kent) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Plaintiff.
Mr. DONALD FARQUHARSON (instructed by Mr. E.O. Lane, Solicitor New Scotland Yard) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant.
Mr. GORDON SLYNN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant.
This case raises a short point of pleading. Mr. Stapeley, a detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police Force, was arrested by Mr. Annetts, a detective inspector, on a charge of theft. At a hearing before the Magistrate the case against Mr. Stapeley was dismissed. Mr. Stapeley then sued Mr. Annetts for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. In his defence Mr. Annetts said that he made the arrest on the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Thereupon Mr. Stapeley joined the Director as a defendant also. On the claim for false imprisonment the defendants plead that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff was guilty of theft. They were properly ordered to give particulars of that defence: and they have given them. On the claim for malicious prosecution, the burden is different. The plaintiff has to allege and prove that the defendants acted maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause. The defendants have denied this charge. They deny that there was any absence of reasonable and probable cause. The plaintiff seeks particulars of the grounds on which they prosecuted him. The Master and the Judge both refused the application for particulars. Mr. Stapeley appeals to this Court. He says that he would be taken by surprise if he did not know the grounds on which the Director acted. He also added that the plaintiff is legally assisted, and those advising him would like to know the grounds so as to be able to advise whether it is a case which should be continued on legal aid.
To this argument I think the simple answer is this: In an action for malicious prosecution the burden is on the plaintiff to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tetuan Sri Ling & Associates v Lian Meng Wah
-
Rider v Rider
...it is difficult to see how he could have made any other finding. 21 I would only add that in the recent case of Lovine -v-Morris (1970 1 W.L.R. p.20) this court in a negligence action considered the duties of a highway authority engaged in the construction of a new highway. There Lord Justi......
-
Howard v Borneman (No. 2)
...in the statement of claim, the onus of establishing which lies upon him. and Lord Denning M.R. adopted this in Stapeley v.Annetts [1970] 1 W.L.R. 20, at page 22; butWeinberger's case was not decided on that ground, at any rate alone, but on the ground that the denial was a mere traverse and......
-
Hansraj Matadial Claimant v Cecelia John Defendant [ECSC]
...knowledge. Further, there is no obligation on Mrs. John to furnish particulars of reasonable and probable cause See:Stapley v Anetts [1970] 1 WLR 20. 119 In passing, I must hasten to add that I am convinced that Mrs. John did honestly believe in the justice of her case against the Matadials......