Can I claim damages against someone who insists on filing frivolous, vexatious and malicious actions in Court or police reports against me?
The tort of malicious prosecution is an action under tort law, where a victim can claim damages from a perpetrator who has intentionally initiated criminal or civil proceedings against the victim, without basis and out of malice.
First, making a false police report is unlikely to be seen as constituting a prosecution. Such an act is an offence in itself under Section 182 of the Penal Code 1871, which provides that whoever gives any public servant information he knows or believes to be false, intending to cause or knowing it likely that he will cause such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of another person is an offence. This offence carries a punishment of imprisonment up to 2 years or a fine or both.
In Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 [2018] 2 SLR 866, the Court of Appeal made a few clarifications on the law in Singapore with regard to the tort of malicious prosecution.
First, the tort of malicious prosecution does not generally apply to civil proceedings in Singapore. The Court of Appeal was of the view that it is entirely lawful for one party to commence civil proceedings against another party even if proceedings turn out to be unmeritorious. The other party is not entitled to recover damages for the malicious prosecution of civil claims against him, save where the tort of conspiracy to injure is made out or where there is an abuse of a public function for collateral purposes.
The Court of Appeal provided a number of reasons for its decision
If proceedings turned out to be unmeritorious, then the unsuccessful party would face the usual procedural as well as costs consequences. It did not mean that just because one commences proceedings with malice or some other untoward motivation, he ought to be civilly liable.
There are also essential differences between criminal and civil prosecutions. The former has more serious effects than civil proceedings on a Defendant’s reputation.
There are also other areas of uncertainty, such as the effect of extending the tort on other areas of the law. For example, the principle that a litigant owes no duty of care to his adversary in relation to the conduct of proceedings.
Extending the tort of malicious prosecution to the civil sphere would also generally undermine the principle of finality in law and legal process. It would encourage unnecessary satellite litigation, which is especially rife among parties who have an unpleasant history between each other.
There would also be a danger of opening the floodgates of litigation by opening the door to a litany of claims of a large variety whereas the Court’s time and resources are finite.
The extension of the tort may also lead to a deterrent effect on regular litigation as some litigants may be inhibited from invoking the jurisdiction of the Courts and some witnesses may be inhibited from freely assisting in the administration of justice.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. It is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking any action(s) based on this publication. We shall not be responsible for, nor do we accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance on this publication.