KembaraXtra - Case Law - Land Securities Ltd v Fladgate Fielder

KembaraXtra - Case Law - Land Securities Ltd v Fladgate Fielder
Case Overview

Citation: Land Securities Ltd and others v Fladgate Fielder (a firm) [2010] 2 All ER 741
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judges: Mummery, Moore-Bick and Etherton LJJ
Date: October/December 2009

II. Key Legal Issue

Whether the claimants had an arguable claim in tort of abuse of process arising out of judicial review proceedings initiated by the defendants.

III. Facts

Claimants (LS): Property developers seeking planning permission for two developments (PH & WP).
Defendants (FF): Solicitors concerned the development would impact their office's market value.
WP Development: LS applied for planning permission, including provision of affordable housing.
PH Development: LS applied for planning permission.
FF alleged LS intended to "over-provide" affordable housing on the WP development to offset failing to provide such housing for the PH development.
Judicial Review: FF sought judicial review of the WP development planning permission.
Claim: LS sued FF for abuse of civil process, alleging FF's dominant purpose in bringing the JR was to pressure LS to help them relocate, not to challenge the planning permission.

IV. Court's Decision

No basis for extending the tort of abuse of process to the defendants' judicial review proceedings.
Summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants (FF).
The appeal by claimants (LS) was dismissed.

V. Reasoning

No general tort of malicious prosecution of civil cases. Limited to three heads of damage.
Malicious Prosecution Requirements: Absence of reasonable cause & proceedings ending in favor of the prosecuted party.
Abuse of Process History: Previously only successfully invoked where misuse of a particular process within existing proceedings (arrest/execution).
Irrelevance of Reasonable Cause: In abuse of process, whether there was reasonable cause for proceedings or how they ended is irrelevant.
Obiter Statements: Broader application of abuse of process in English authorities are obiter dicta.
Collateral Purpose: No clearly accepted approach for identifying what is sufficiently collateral to establish the tort.
Limiting Malicious Prosecution: Extending abuse of process would undermine the limits placed on malicious prosecution claims.
Deterrence of Claims: Concerns about parallel litigation and deterring honest claims.
Judicial Review Permission: Particular force applied to proceedings for judicial review that the court has given permission for.

VI. Key Principles

Tort of Abuse of Process: Not easily expanded beyond established categories.
Malicious Prosecution vs. Abuse of Process: Important distinctions and limitations on malicious prosecution claims.
Judicial Review: Requires court's permission and should not be easily deterred by threat of tort claims.

VII. Cases Applied/Considered

LAW