In English law, abuse of process refers to the improper use of court procedures in a way that is unjust, oppressive, or manipulative. It prevents litigants from misusing the legal system to achieve ends outside the proper scope of justice.
The doctrine ensures that court proceedings are not exploited to harass opponents, relitigate settled issues, or gain unfair advantage. It protects the integrity of the judicial process and the fairness of proceedings.
In Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (1982), the House of Lords stressed that relitigating matters already decided is an abuse of process. Criminal cases may also be stayed where delay or misconduct renders a fair trial impossible.
Abuse of process is vital to maintaining public confidence in the justice system. It ensures legal procedures serve their proper function of resolving disputes fairly rather than becoming tools for oppression or manipulation.
Loss adjusters sued an insurance company for malicious prosecution after fraud allegations were dropped just before trial. The Privy Council held 3-2 that the tort of malicious prosecution extends to civil proceedings, overturning previous limitations. This landmark decision restored historic common law principles allowing recovery for maliciously prosecuted civil claims.
A barrister sued his former wife, a solicitor, for false imprisonment and harassment after she complained to police that he breached court orders, leading to his arrest. The Court of Appeal held that witness immunity protected her police statements from suit, and that two text messages she sent could not constitute harassment.
The Government of Zanzibar purchased an executive jet aircraft from British Aerospace, alleging misrepresentations about its airworthiness and reliability. The court dismissed the main action for delay and abuse of process, holding that issuing writs at limitation's end without readiness to proceed was impermissible. The judgment clarified that damages under section 2(2) Misrepresentation Act require an extant right to rescission.
A councillor sought damages for malicious prosecution after disciplinary proceedings against him were quashed. The House of Lords held that the tort of malicious prosecution does not extend to domestic disciplinary proceedings, as such proceedings fall outside the established categories of criminal proceedings and specific civil processes to which the tort applies.
Mr Johnson, who conducted business through his company Westway Homes Limited, sued solicitors Gore Wood & Co. for professional negligence, claiming personal losses arising from their negligent handling of a property option. The House of Lords held his personal action was not an abuse of process despite the company having previously settled its own claim against the same solicitors.
Tenants claimed damages for conspiracy by unlawful means after their landlord sold property without serving required notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The court struck out the claim, holding that breach of the Act did not support an action for conspiracy where the breach was not independently actionable.
The Playboy Club sought to bring a deceit claim against BNL after losing a negligence claim concerning a fraudulent credit reference provided by a bank employee. The Court of Appeal held it was not an abuse of process to bring the separate deceit claim, as significant new evidence emerged during the negligence trial.
Bennett, a New Zealand citizen wanted for fraud offences in England, alleged he was kidnapped in South Africa and forcibly returned to the UK with the connivance of British police, bypassing extradition procedures. The House of Lords held that courts have power to stay proceedings as an abuse of process where authorities have disregarded extradition procedures.
Customs and an informer arranged a controlled heroin importation from Pakistan and lured Shahzad and Latif to England, where they sought to take delivery and were arrested. The House of Lords upheld their convictions, clarifying abuse of process, entrapment, and the scope of section 170(2) CEMA.
Celebrity chef Marco Pierre White sued his wife’s solicitors over “Hildebrand” documents she had taken and given to them for ancillary relief proceedings. The Court of Appeal held his trespass to goods and conversion claims should not be struck out, clarifying limits of Hildebrand self‑help.
Mr Willers alleged that Mr Gubay maliciously caused a company to sue him in civil proceedings without reasonable cause, as part of a vendetta, causing reputational, financial and personal harm. The Supreme Court held that the tort of malicious prosecution applies to civil proceedings, allowing his claim to proceed.
September 22, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 22, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 22, 2026
National Case Law Archive