MT v Se

The appeal concerned a dispute between MT (appellant) and SE (respondent) arising from the respondent's report to the police concerning the appellant's alleged abusive behaviour during their relationship and subsequent separation. The respondent provided a statement to SAPOL, which led to an application for an intervention order against the appellant. The appellant subsequently sued the respondent for malicious prosecution and collateral abuse of process. The respondent applied for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss these claims. The matter was heard by Livesey P, Bleby J, and Hall AJ.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had initiated the intervention order proceedings, thereby potentially founding a claim for malicious prosecution, and whether the appellant had adequately pleaded a claim for collateral abuse of process, particularly concerning damages. The court was required to determine if the respondent's actions in providing information to the police constituted the commencement of legal proceedings for the purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, and if the appellant's pleadings sufficiently particularised any special damages for the tort of collateral abuse of process.

The Full Court allowed the appeal in part. It found that the intervention order proceedings were initiated by SAPOL, not the respondent personally, and that providing information to the police, even if later found to be untrue, did not equate to instituting proceedings for the tort of malicious prosecution. The court reasoned that the decision to apply for the intervention order rested with the independent prosecuting authority. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment in relation to the collateral abuse of process claim, indicating that the appellant had not sufficiently particularised the special damages required for such a claim.

Consequently, the Full Court set aside the summary judgment in respect of the malicious prosecution claim, dismissing that part of the summary judgment application. The court affirmed the summary judgment concerning the collateral abuse of process claim.