Malicious prosecution claims fail without proof of lack of reasonable cause, malice, and supportive circumstances.

A claim for malicious prosecution requires proof that the defendant instituted or continued proceedings without reasonable and probable cause, acted with malice, and that the proceedings ended in the plaintiff's favour. On the facts discussed, the respondent had grounds to believe the appellant and property dealers acted together in the transfer transaction, including use of an unauthorised application and a false assertion that payment had been made. The complaint was therefore not shown to be wholly invented or driven by spite, and the burden of disproving reasonable and probable cause was not discharged. No material was found to infer malice from the circumstances proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant proved that the respondent instituted the criminal complaint maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, so as to entitle the appellant to damages for malicious prosecution.

Analysis: To succeed in an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant instituted or continued the proceedings, acted without reasonable cause, acted maliciously, and that the proceedings terminated in the plaintiff's favour. The evidence showed that the respondent had grounds to believe that the appellant and the property dealers had acted together in the transfer transaction, including the use of an unauthorised application and the incorrect assertion that payment had been made to the respondent. The respondent's complaint was therefore not shown to be wholly invented or motivated by spite, and the burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause was not discharged. The Court also found no material to infer malice from the circumstances proved.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove malicious prosecution, absence of reasonable and probable cause, or malice.

---