Sims v Woodward and South Pacific Aero Clubs [1969] PGLawRp 459; [1969-70] PNGLR 10 (18 April 1969)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1969-70

[1969-70] PNGLR 10 - Sims v Woodward and South Pacific Aero Clubs

[1969-70] PNGLR 10

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SIMS

V.

WOODWARD AND SOUTH PACIFIC AERO CLUBS

Port Moresby

Ollerenshaw J

17-18 April 1969

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - Proceedings to arrest absconding debtor - Reasonable and probable cause - Malice.

The first defendant who was the manager of the second defendant and the person responsible for recovery of its debts received reliable information indicating that the plaintiff was about to leave the Territory. At the time a judgment for debt obtained by the second defendant against the plaintiff in the District Court remained unsatisfied. The first defendant thereupon instituted proceedings on behalf of the second defendant which led to the arrest of the plaintiff and his detention for the weekend in a police station. Next day when the plaintiff was brought before the District Court he was discharged without any further step being taken against him because he had decided not to leave the Territory after all. In an action against both defendants for damages for malicious prosecution,

Held:

That as the plaintiff had not proved that the defendants had instituted proceedings maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause there must be judgment for the defendants.

Trial.

Ronald James Sims commenced an action against Colin James Woodward and South Pacific Aero Clubs claiming damages for malicious prosecution. All relevant facts appear in the reasons for judgment hereunder.

Counsel:

White, for the plaintiff.

Francis, for the defendants.

18 April 1969

OLLERENSHAW J:  The plaintiff sues to recover damages for malicious prosecution.

In March 1968, he owed the second defendant $600 odd under a judgment in the District Court for debt. The first defendant is the manager of the other defendant and the person responsible for the recovery of its debts. He is the only officer of the other defendant concerned in this action.

Having received reliable information pointing to the intention of the plaintiff to leave the Territory imminently and believing that the plaintiff intended to do this without discharging the debt, reasonably and honestly believing that, he instituted proceedings on behalf of the second defendant, intended to, and which did in fact lead to the arrest of the plaintiff, who, unfortunately, had to spend a weekend in a cell at the Central Police Station at Boroko with an unclean foreigner.

When the plaintiff was brought before the District Court on the following Monday morning he was discharged without any payment of the debt and without being examined or called upon to give evidence—he had changed his mind about leaving the Territory. It was thus that these proceedings were concluded in his favour.

As part of his case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants instituted the proceedings without reasonable and probable cause. In my view, the plaintiff has not succeeded in doing this. Indeed, on a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the defendants had reasonable and probable cause for instituting and continuing those proceedings.

Furthermore, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants acted maliciously, that is, with some improper or wrongful motive. The plaintiff has not done this. I am satisfied that the only object of the first defendant was the protection of the second defendant’s interest, that is the recovery of the debt. In these circumstances, there must be, and I pronounce a verdict for the defendants. The defendants generously have agreed to forego costs so there will be judgment for the defendants without costs.

Judgment for the defendants.

Solicitors for the plaintiff: Norman White & Reitano.

Solicitor for the defendants: John Andrews.