LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Land Securities Ltd v Fladgate Fielder: Study Guide
Citation: Land Securities Ltd and others v Fladgate Fielder (a firm) [2010] 2 All ER 741
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Facts:
  • Claimants (Land Securities) were developers seeking planning permission for two developments: PH (retail, office, residential) and WP.
  • Defendants (Fladgate Fielder, a law firm) were concerned the PH development would negatively impact their property value.
  • Defendants believed the Claimants intended to offset a lack of affordable housing in the PH development by "over-providing" affordable housing in the WP development.
  • Defendants sought judicial review of the planning permission granted for the WP development.
  • Claimants revised the PH application, making the WP affordable housing irrelevant, and received planning permission for the PH site.
  • Defendants withdrew their judicial review claim.
  • Claimants sued for abuse of process, alleging the judicial review was brought to pressure them into assisting the Defendants' office relocation.
  • The deputy judge granted summary judgment for the Defendants, dismissing the action.
Issue:
  • Can the tort of abuse of process be extended to judicial review proceedings in this context?
Held:
  • No. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the summary judgment for the Defendants.
  • There is no basis for extending the tort of abuse of process to the defendants' proceedings for judicial review
Reasoning:
  1. Malicious Prosecution:
    • There is no general tort of malicious prosecution of civil cases; it's confined to specific heads of damage.
    • Essential ingredients of malicious prosecution include the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the proceedings ending in the claimant's favor.
  2. Abuse of Process (Historically):
    • Historically, abuse of process claims have succeeded only in cases involving blatant misuse of a specific process (e.g., arrest, execution) within existing proceedings.
    • In these cases, reasonable cause and the outcome of the proceedings are irrelevant.
  3. Broader Application (Rejected):
    • Statements suggesting a broader application of abuse of process are obiter dicta.
    • No clearly accepted approach exists for identifying what is sufficiently "collateral" to establish the tort.
  4. Policy Concerns:
    • Extending abuse of process to all cases of economic loss, even with good cause of action, undermines the limitations on malicious prosecution.
    • It would deter pursuing honest claims and create parallel litigation.
    • These concerns apply strongly to judicial review proceedings, where the court has already granted permission for the review.
Key Principles Affirmed:
  • Narrow Scope of Abuse of Process: The tort is limited and should not be expanded easily.
  • Balance of Interests: Courts must balance the right to bring legal claims with the need to prevent misuse of the legal system.
  • Judicial Review Scrutiny: Permission to bring judicial review provides a level of initial scrutiny, making an abuse of process claim more difficult.
Cases Applied:
  • Grainger v Hill (1838) 4 Bing NC 212
  • Gilding v Eyre (1861) 10 CBNS 592
Cases Considered:
  • Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co v Eyre (1883) 11 QBD 674
  • Gregory v Portsmouth City Council [2000] 1 All ER 560
Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law