Law Institute of Victoria & Ors v Little

The applicants, the Law Institute of Victoria, Gordon David Lewis, and Bernard George Teague, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The dispute arose from proceedings initiated by the respondent, Mr. J.D. Little, who sued the applicants for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in a public office, conspiracy, and breach of fair trading legislation. These claims stemmed from earlier proceedings where Mr. Little faced a committal order for failing to pay insurance contributions and practising without a certificate.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Full Court of Victoria had erred in law by allowing certain claims to stand. Specifically, the applicants contended that the Full Court, by a majority, incorrectly permitted the malicious prosecution counts to proceed, despite the absence of an essential element: the termination of the original proceedings in favour of the plaintiff. The applicants also raised issues concerning the striking out of parts of the misfeasance in a public office claim and the conspiracy and fair trading claims.

The applicants argued that established legal principles require that for a malicious prosecution claim to succeed, the original proceedings must have concluded in favour of the plaintiff. They submitted that the Full Court majority had acknowledged this requirement but then appeared to suggest that if there was a demonstrable dependence between the committal proceedings and subsequent events, this element might be dispensed with. The Court considered whether the ultimate vindication of Mr. Little, or the removal of the substratum of the committal proceedings, could alter the application of the rule regarding the favourable termination of prior proceedings.