This one is actually binding on a very small number of people,
being an appeal from the Cayman Islands -- but given that it's
a Privy Council decision, it's likely to be influential:
Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman)
Ltd,  UKPC 17. The case arose from building works
undertaken to repair hurricane damage. Sagicor, the insurer of a
residential development, retained Alastair Paterson as a loss
adjuster and made payments to Hurlstone, a building company, to
repair the development in accordance with the terms of the policy.
There were other storms brewing. A senior VP at
Sagicor had an animus against Paterson and
alleged that Paterson and Hurlstone had perpetrated a fraud on
Sagicor; he also told a reporter that Paterson had made
misrepresentations, causing damage to Paterson's
reputation once the reporter published the information. Paterson
counterclaimed for breach of contract and with a tort claim for
malicious prosecution. The Cayman trial judge held that the tort
claim could not succeed: while the allegations against Paterson had
been made maliciously and without reasonable cause, and had caused
him significant financial and other loss, they did not arise from
previous criminal proceedings. The judge relied on a relatively
recent House of Lords decision which declined to extend the tort of
malicious prosecution to civil proceedings: Gregory v
Portsmouth City Council,  1 AC 419.
The appeals made their way to the Privy Council, which has
decided (3-2) that Gregory left the window open to a claim
of malicious prosecution arising from civil proceedings. Lord
Walker, for the majority, reviewed the authorities in detail
(starting in 1285) and Gregory in particular, holding that
if the tort could not be applied to the facts of this case Paterson
would effectively be left without redress, which could not be
right; it would betray the court's 'primary loyalty' to
provide a remedy for a wrong. Lords Sumption and Neuberger
disagreed: Gregory was the last word on the subject and
departing from the rule in that case would permit litigants to
prolong disputes by way of secondary litigation on the basis of an
uncertain and potentially very wide cause of action.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).