Malicious Prosecution Divides The Privy Council

It is a frequent and necessary function of the law to create a balance between competing and conflicting desirable aims. Three such are (1) no wrong should go without remedy; (2) there should be an end to litigation and (3) there should be no deterrence from bringing justified proceedings. These, in some respects conflicting, policies lie at the heart of the recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on appeal from the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2013] UKPC.

The appeal was decided by the narrowest of margins - 3:2 - and led to a sharp and, in judicial terms, at times acrimonious, difference of views between the judges. In short, the majority, led by Lord Wilson, with Lady Hale and Lord Kerr, held that the tort of malicious prosecution is not, as had been the law of England (and Cayman) for centuries, confined to the prosecution of criminal offences (and a small disparate collection of