Abuse of process

The use of legal process to accomplish an unlawful purpose; causing a summons, writ, warrant, mandate, or any other process to issue from a court in order to accomplish some purpose not intended by the law.

For example, a grocer rents a small building but complains to the landlord about the inadequate heating system, leaks in the roof, and potholes in the driveway. When the landlord fails to make the required repairs, the grocer decides the property is worth less and deducts $100 a month from his rent payments. The landlord starts a lawsuit to either recover the full amount of rent due or to oust the grocer and regain possession of the premises. The law in their state is fairly clear on the question: a tenant has no right to force a landlord to make repairs by withholding a portion of the rent. The landlord knows that she has a good chance of winning her case, but she also wants to teach the grocer a lesson. On the first three occasions that the case comes up on the court calendar, the grocer closes his store and appears in court, but the landlord does not show up. On the fourth occasion, the landlord comes to court and wins her case. The grocer, in a separate action for abuse of process, claims that the landlord is using the court's power to order him to appear simply to harass him. The court agrees and awards him money damages for lost income and inconvenience.

Abuse of process is a wrong committed during the course of litigation. It is a perversion of lawfully issued process and is different from malicious prosecution, a lawsuit started without any reasonable cause.

‹ The template below (Law unref) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This law-related article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations, which can be found through legal research.

Tort law

Part of the common law series

Intentional torts

Assault · Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)

Property torts

Trespass (land · chattels) Conversion Detinue · Replevin · Trover

Defenses

Consent · Necessity Defense of self · of others · of property

Negligence

Duty of care · Standard of care Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur Calculus of negligence Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue

Specific types Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) Employment-related · Entrustment Malpractice (legal · medical)

Liability torts

Product liability Ultrahazardous activity

Nuisance

Public nuisance Rylands v. Fletcher

Dignitary torts

Defamation · Invasion of privacy False light · Breach of confidence Abuse of process Malicious prosecution Alienation of affections · Seduction

Economic torts

Fraud · Tortious interference Conspiracy · Restraint of trade

Liability, defences, remedies

Comparative / contributory negligence Last clear chance · Eggshell skull Vicarious liability · Volenti non fit injuria Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Neutral reportage · Damages Injunction · Torts and conflict of laws

Duty to visitors

Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees Attractive nuisance

Other common law areas

Contracts · Criminal law · Evidence Property · Wills, trusts and estates

Portals

Law

v • d • e

Abuse of process is a common law intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: it is the malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. "Process" in this context is used in the same sense as in "service of process," where "process" refers to an official summons or other notice issued from a court. The person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

Principle

The principles which lead to a finding of an abuse of process in the UK were stated in Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65; [2002] 2 AC 1, by Lord Bingham at 30-1.

“

“The underlying public interest is … that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. This public interest is reinforced by the current emphasis on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the interests of the parties and the public as a whole. The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defence in later proceedings may, without more, amount to abuse if the court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or defence should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all. I would not accept that it is necessary, before abuse may be found, to identify any additional element such as a collateral attack on a previous decision or some dishonesty, but where those elements are present the later proceedings will be much more obviously abusive, and there will rarely be a finding of abuse unless the later proceeding involves what the court regards as unjust harassment of a party. It is, however, wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive. That is to adopt too dogmatic an approach to what should in my opinion be a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before. As one cannot comprehensively list all possible forms of abuse, so one cannot formulate any hard and fast rule to determine whether, on given facts, abuse is to be found or not … Properly applied, and whatever the legitimacy of its descent, the rule has in my view a valuable part to play in protecting the interests of justice.”

”

Cases

• David Harris v. The Society of Lloyd's [2008] EWHC 1433 (Comm)

See also

• Frivolous litigation
• Vexatious litigation
• Barratry
• SLAPP
• Restraining order abuse

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)