However, in order for malice to be present, the party bringing the action must have done so with an improper purpose–something other than seeking actual redress for legitimate wrongs or forcing a wrongdoer to face the consequences of his or her actions.

The requirement may also be met by a calculated, unemotional decision to use the legal system for inappropriate purposes, such as to cause inconvenience or cost (for example, by forcing the other party to pay exorbitant legal fees to defend an otherwise pointless action). Legally sufficient “malice” may include actual hostility. Legally speaking, the “malice” requirement is met when a party brings a legal action in bad faith, intending to use the action (or the legal system) to wrong, annoy, or inconvenience another party. The type of malice required does not involve (or even require) personal hostility, anger, or ill-will toward any person or entity. It probably comes as no surprise that malice (or “improper purpose”) is a primary element of the tort of malicious prosecution.

Today, we’re taking a closer look at the second element: improper purpose, also sometimes referred to as malice. The person claiming malicious prosecution prevailed in the original (allegedly malicious action). The plaintiff (in the action which is the subject of the malicious prosecution claim) had no probable cause to believe the action was founded on proper legal grounds.Ĥ. The plaintiff (in that initial action) had an improper purpose for filing the action.ģ.

Commencement of a civil (or criminal) legal action or proceeding.Ģ. To prove malicious prosecution, the claimant (who was generally the defendant in the allegedly malicious action which prompted the malicious prosecution suit) must prove all four of the following elements:ġ. Malicious prosecution involves the wrongful use of the justice system to punish, harass, or oppress another person. Proving “Malice” in Malicious Prosecution Actions

Mirillis action buy