Willers v Joyce (No 1)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtSupreme Court
JudgeLord Sumption,Lord Mance,Lord Neuberger,Lord Clarke,Lord Toulson,Lady Hale,Lord Kerr,Lord Reed,Lord Wilson
Judgment Date20 July 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] UKSC 43
Date20 July 2016

[2016] UKSC 43


Trinity Term

On appeal from: [2015] EWHC 1315


Lord Neuberger, President

Lady Hale, Deputy President

Lord Mance

Lord Kerr

Lord Clarke

Lord Wilson

Lord Sumption

Lord Reed

Lord Toulson

Joyce and another (in substitution for and in their capacity as executors of Albert Gubay (deceased))
(Respondent) (1)


John McDonnell QC Hugo Page QC Adam Chichester-Clark

(Instructed by De Cruz Solicitors)


Bernard Livesey QC Paul Mitchell QC

(Instructed by Laytons)

Heard on 7 March 2016

Lord Toulson

( with whom Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson agree)


This appeal raises the question whether the tort of malicious prosecution includes the prosecution of civil proceedings. It also raises a question about whether and in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Council which has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. The second question is the subject of a separate judgment: [2016] UKSC 44.


The appeal is from a decision of Ms Amanda Tipples QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division, striking out a claim brought by Mr Peter Willers against Mr Albert Gubay as disclosing no cause of action known to English law. The judge was faced with conflicting views of the House of Lords in Gregory v Portsmouth City Council [2000] 1 AC 419 and the Privy Council in Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2014] AC 366. She held that she was bound by the decision of the House of Lords but granted a "leapfrog" certificate under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, and permission to appeal was given by this court. In excellent arguments on both sides the court was referred to a large number of authorities. In examining the case law it will be convenient to begin with the Gregory case and the Crawford case, before going back to the earlier authorities, and then to consider the policy arguments. First, it is necessary to explain in brief outline the nature of the claim.

Mr Willers' claim

Mr Gubay was a successful businessman. He died while this appeal was pending and his executors now act on behalf of his estate. Mr Willers was Mr Gubay's right hand man for over 20 years until he was dismissed by Mr Gubay in the summer of 2009. Among the group of companies controlled by Mr Gubay was a leisure company, Langstone Leisure Ltd ("Langstone"). Mr Willers was a director of it. Prior to Mr Willers' dismissal, Langstone pursued an action for wrongful trading against the directors of another company, Aqua Design and Play Ltd ("Aqua"), which had gone into liquidation. That action was abandoned shortly before trial in late 2009 on Mr Gubay's instructions.


In 2010 Langstone sued Mr Willers for alleged breach of contractual and fiduciary duties in causing it to incur costs in pursuing the Aqua directors. Mr Willers defended the action, and issued a third party claim for an indemnity against Mr Gubay, on the grounds that he had acted under Mr Gubay's directions in the prosecution of the Aqua claim. On 28 March 2013, two weeks before the date fixed for a five-week trial of the action, Langstone gave notice of discontinuance. On 16 April 2013 Newey J ordered Langstone to pay Mr Willers' costs on the standard basis.


It is Mr Willers' case that the claim brought against him by Langstone was part of a campaign by Mr Gubay to do him harm. It is unnecessary to set out the details pleaded by him in the present action. It is not disputed that they include all the necessary ingredients for a claim of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings, if such an action is sustainable in English law. In particular, it is sufficiently alleged that Mr Gubay was responsible for having caused the claim to be brought; that the claim was determined in Mr Willers' favour; that it was brought without reasonable cause, since Mr Gubay knew that it was he who was responsible for causing Langstone to bring the earlier wrongful trading claim; that Mr Gubay was actuated by malice in causing Langstone to sue Mr Willers; and that Mr Willers suffered damage. The heads of damage claimed are damage to his reputation, damage to health, loss of earnings and the difference between the full amount of the costs incurred by him in defending Langstone's claim (£3.9m) and the amount recovered under the costs order of Newey J (£1.7m).

Gregory v Portsmouth City Council


Mr Gregory was a member of Portsmouth City Council. Allegations were made that he had misused, for his personal advantage, confidential information gained by him as a councillor about matters affecting local properties. Internal disciplinary proceedings resulted in findings of misconduct and his removal from various committees. The details were widely reported in the local press. Mr Gregory successfully challenged the decision by means of judicial review. He then brought an action against the council for malicious prosecution of the disciplinary proceedings. The House of Lords upheld a decision striking out his claim. The main speech was given by Lord Steyn.


It was argued by Mr Gregory that disciplinary proceedings were penal in nature and should therefore be covered by the tort of malicious prosecution in the same way as criminal proceedings. This argument was rejected. Lord Steyn observed that there was a great diversity of statutory and non-statutory disciplinary proceedings with different purposes. To leave it to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis which disciplinary proceedings might ground the tort would be liable to plunge the law into uncertainty. In arguing that the disciplinary proceedings should be regarded as penal, counsel for Mr Gregory conceded that the tort did not extend to civil proceedings generally. Lord Steyn observed (pp 427–428) that it had never been held to be available beyond the limits of criminal proceedings and a few special cases of abuse of civil legal process, such as malicious presentation of a winding up or bankruptcy petition ( Johnson v Emerson (1871) LR 6 Ex 329; Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co v Eyre (1883) 11 QBD 674), malicious obtaining of a search warrant ( Gibbs v Rea [1998] AC 786) or bench warrant ( Roy v Prior [1971] AC 470), or malicious process to obtain execution against property ( Clissold v Cratchley [1910] 2 KB 244). He said that although such cases appeared to be disparate, there was in a broad sense a common feature in that they potentially involved immediate and irreversible damage to the reputation of the victim. Another recognised head of actionable abuse of process was the malicious arrest of a vessel ( The Walter D Wallet [1893] P 202) and in such cases the loss was merely financial, but Lord Steyn described them as rare. He said that the traditional explanation for not extending the tort to civil proceedings generally was that in a civil case there was no damage, since the fair name of the victim was protected by the trial and judgment. Lord Steyn acknowledged (p 432) that this theory was no longer plausible in an age when reputational harm can be caused by pre-trial publicity, but he said that it was a matter for consideration whether there might be other reasons for restricting the availability of the tort in respect of civil proceedings.


Lord Steyn concluded (p 432) that it was not necessary for the disposal of the case to express a view on the argument in favour of extending the tort to civil proceedings generally, but that it would be unsatisfactory to leave the matter in the air, and he therefore stated his opinion briefly. He accepted that there was a stronger case for extending the tort to civil proceedings generally than to disciplinary proceedings, but he said that "for essentially practical reasons" he was not persuaded that such an extension had been shown to be necessary, taking into account the protection afforded by the torts of defamation, malicious falsehood, conspiracy and misfeasance in public office.

Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd


Mr Alastair Paterson was a chartered surveyor in the Cayman Islands. He provided services as a loss adjuster and as a project manager, acting through two companies of which he was a director. In those capacities he was instructed by the insurers and owners of residential development in the Cayman Islands that had suffered hurricane damage. Mr Paterson instructed building contractors to carry out the remedial work. Acting on his advice the insurers made substantial payments to the contractors. He was close to finalising his adjustment of the insurers' liability, when the insurers' internal claim-handling was taken over by a newly appointed senior officer, Mr Frank Delessio. From their past acquaintanceship Mr Delessio had a strong dislike of Mr Paterson and a low opinion of his competence.


On studying the paperwork, Mr Delessio became concerned that there was a serious lack of documentation to support the payments which the insurers had already made on Mr Paterson's advice. He announced that he intended to drive Mr Paterson out of business and to destroy him professionally. He instructed another surveyor and loss adjuster to value the work done, but on Mr Delessio's instructions the second surveyor did not speak to Mr Paterson or the contractors. Nor did he make inquiries of the subcontractors or suppliers about costs or consult the structural engineers who had prepared the drawings. On the strength of the figures put forward by the second surveyor, Mr Delessio caused the insurers to sue Mr Paterson, his companies and the contractors, claiming damages on various bases including deceit and conspiracy to defraud. He was also instrumental in alerting the local press to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Smyth v SAS Sogimalp Tarentaise
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 July 2019
    ...of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings has only recently been recognised by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Willers v Joyce [2016] UKSC 43; [2016] 3 W.L.R. 477, following the Privy Council in Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2013] UKPC ......
  • Stallion Eight Shipping Company S.A. v Natwest Markets Plc (formerly known as the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 December 2018
    ...which we can introduce so far reaching a change in the practice for the first time.’ I do not consider that Lord Clarke's comments [in Willers v Joyce, see below] can be regarded as having been expressed per incuriam.” 29 Pulling the threads together, the Judge observed (at [41]) that the C......
  • Jonathan Rees v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 July 2018
    ...in what he did. 85 This view is, I think, supported by what Lord Toulson said about the element of “malice” in Willers v Joyce [2016] UKSC 43 at paragraph 55 as follows: “Malice is an additional requirement. In the early cases, such as Savile v Roberts, the courts used the expression “falso......
  • CFC 26 Ltd SHG-SH20 Ltd (Proposed Claimant) v Brown Shipley & Company Ltd and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 29 November 2016
    ...The Supreme Court has since decided, by a majority, that the tort extends to civil as well as criminal proceedings: see Willers v Joyce [2016] UKSC 43, [2016] 3 WLR 477. It is the Council's case, however, that the tort still cannot apply in relation to the mere service of an enforcement not......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Shaping The Tort Of Malicious Prosecution Of Civil Claims
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 1 February 2018
    ...and the damage that has been done cannot be undone. It is in this context that the decision of the Supreme Court in Willers v Joyce [2016] UKSC 43, [2017] 2 All ER 327 which decided by a majority of 5:4 that the tort of malicious prosecution includes the prosecution of civil proceedings, is......
  • New Torts – Principle And Pragmatism In Uncharted Territory
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 23 November 2017
    ...where civil court proceedings are brought without legitimate reason and without belief in their foundation. In the case, Willers v Joyce [2016] UKSC 43, Lord Toulson said that the common law is "prized for its combination of principle and pragmatism". Intentional infliction of mental suffer......
  • Ship Arrests In The UK – Can An Arresting Party Be Required To Give Cross-Undertakings In Damages?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 8 August 2018
    ...of the Court of Appeal in The Bazias 3 and The Bazias 4 [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 101 and to the dicta of Lord Clarke in Willers v. Joyce [2016] 3 WLR 477. Importantly, the court also noted that, given that the present position has prevailed for so long, any change in admiralty law and practice ......
  • Fraud Insights: Malicious Prosecution Of Civil Claims
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 30 January 2018
    ...claim, the damage that has been done is not uneasily undone. In these circumstances, the decision of the Supreme Court in Willers v Joyce [2016] UKSC 43, which recognised the tort of malicious prosecution in respect of civil claims, is to be The legal requirements which need to be satisfied......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2018, December 2018
    • 1 December 2018
    ...are described in (2017) 18 SAL Ann Rev 698 at 718–723, paras 26.58–26.76. 47 See paras 26.47–26.49 below. 48 See para 26.120 below. 49 [2016] 3 WLR 477. 50 [2013] 3 WLR 927. 51 (1838) 4 Bing NC 212. 52 (1861) 10 CBNS 592. 53 (1992) 107 ALR 635. 54 See, eg, Savill v Roberts (1698) 12 Mod Rep......
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 [2017] SGHC 121 at [35]. 71 [1996] 2 SLR(R) 858. 72 [2013] 3 WLR 927. 73 [2016] 3 WLR 477. 74 See Zainal bin Kuning v Chan Sin Mian Michael [1996] 2 SLR(R) 858 at [57]. 75 The facts of the case are stated in paras 26.58–26.69 above. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT