Gregory v. Portsmouth City Council

The House of Lords held that the tort of malicious prosecution in English law remains confined to criminal prosecutions and a limited class of civil proceedings constituting an abuse of legal process, and does not extend to domestic disciplinary proceedings instituted by a local authority against a councillor. The court emphasised the established elements of the tort (initiation of legal process, favourable termination, lack of reasonable and proper cause, and malice) and relied on policy considerations, the availability of alternative tort remedies (for example defamation, malicious falsehood, conspiracy and misfeasance in public office) and the diverse character of disciplinary bodies. The House rejected a broad development of the tort to cover local authority disciplinary proceedings and concluded that any wider change is a matter for incremental development by the courts or for Parliament.

Background and facts:

Mr Gregory, a councillor, was the subject of complaints and disciplinary proceedings by Portsmouth City Council alleging misuse of confidential information and breaches of the National Code of Local Government Conduct. An Administrative Sub-Committee and subsequently a Special Committee found breaches and recommended removal from committees; these decisions received media publicity. The Divisional Court quashed the original disciplinary decision (Reg. v. Portsmouth City Council, Ex parte Gregory [1990] 2 Admin. L.R. 681). The Council later attempted to re-run the proceedings but ultimately abandoned them in 1991; Mr Gregory ceased to be a councillor and was separately convicted of unrelated dishonesty offences in 1990.

Procedural posture:

• Claim for damages for malicious prosecution issued on 4 March 1992.
• The claim was struck out at first instance and that dismissal was upheld by the Court of Appeal (Gregory v. Portsmouth City Council (1997) 96 LGR 569) by majority.
• The appeal to the House of Lords followed.

Nature of claim and issues:

• Mr Gregory sought damages for malicious prosecution arising from the disciplinary proceedings, alleging lack of evidence, political motivation and knowledge by the Council that the proceedings were unlawful.
• The House was asked to determine whether: (i) the pleaded facts gave rise to a cause of action in malicious prosecution; (ii) there is a general tort of maliciously instituted civil proceedings; and (iii) the tort extends to domestic disciplinary proceedings by a local authority.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

The Law Lords reviewed the traditional elements and rationale of the tort of malicious prosecution, noting its historical confinement mainly to criminal prosecutions and a few special civil process cases (for example malicious presentation of bankruptcy petitions or ex parte procurements). The court considered policy objections to extending the tort (risk of discouraging reporting and enforcement, the role of costs procedure, the availability of other tort remedies) and structural differences with the United States (where Restatement provisions extend liability to many civil and administrative proceedings). The diversity of disciplinary bodies and procedures led the court to conclude that extending the tort to domestic disciplinary proceedings would be a radical and ill‑defined reform likely to create uncertainty. The House emphasised that alternative torts (defamation, malicious falsehood, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office) already afford relevant remedies and that remedial development should be incremental and evidence‑driven. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that the tort of malicious prosecution is confined to criminal prosecutions and a limited class of civil proceedings constituting an abuse of legal process; it does not extend to domestic disciplinary proceedings by a local authority. The court relied on established elements of the tort, policy considerations, the availability of alternative remedies and the diverse nature of disciplinary fora, and concluded that any wider extension should proceed incrementally or by Parliament.

Divisional Court (Judicial Review) Reg. v. Portsmouth City Council, Ex parte Gregory [1990] 2 Admin. L.R. 681 (decision in disciplinary proceedings quashed); Council attempted new proceedings then abandoned them; claim for malicious prosecution issued 1992 and struck out at first instance; appeal to the Court of Appeal dismissed by majority Gregory v. Portsmouth City Council (1997) 96 LGR 569; appeal to House of Lords [2000] UKHL 3 dismissed.