Malicious procurement of search warrant - ingredients of tort - necessary to prove improper motive for obtaining warrant

Keegan v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2003] EWCA Civ 936: CA (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, and Lords Justice Kennedy and Ward): 3 July 2003

The police had reason to believe that a suspect was involved in armed robberies, the latest of which occurred in August 1999.

When stopped by the police, he had given his address as that of a council house where his mother had lived until some time before April 1999.

In October 1999, a police officer, acting on information from other officers, obtained a warrant to search the house, telling the magistrate that he had reasonable cause to believe that stolen cash was in the possession of the occupier.

A few days later, in execution of the warrant, police entered the house at 7am, having used a metal ram to force open the door, and found that the claimant and his frightened family were the only occupants.

In fact the house, having been empty for some months, had been occupied by the claimants since April 1999, as checks with utility companies and the council would have shown.

The claimant claimed damages against the chief constable for, among other things, malicious procurement of the search warrant.

The judge dismissed the claim.

The claimants appealed.

Stephen Simblet (instructed by Jackson & Canter, Liverpool) for the claimant; Graham Wells (instructed by Weightman Vizards, Liverpool) for the chief constable.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the ingredients of the tort of malicious procurement of a search warrant were a successful application for a search warrant, a lack of reasonable and probable cause to make the application, malice, and resultant damage; that to prove malice a claimant had at least to establish that the application for the warrant was made for an improper motive and it was not enough merely to show that the police lacked reasonable or probable cause to seek the warrant; and that, although on the facts the police had lacked such reasonable and probable cause, there was no evidence of improper motive, viz any motive other than a desire to recover the stolen cash.

(WLR)

Breach of duty - claimant alleging negligent undervaluation of shares - valuer not liable in negligence unless end figure outside bracket of figures which reasonably competent valuer could have reached

Goldstein v Levy Gee (a firm): Ch D (Mr Justice Lewison): 1 July 2003

The claimant brought an action in tort against the defendant for damages alleging negligent undervaluation of shares which the claimant had been obliged to sell at a value assessed by the defendant.

The claimant submitted that where a valuer made an incompetent error in the course of his reasoning which led to a difference in the final figure, then that difference could amount to a recoverable loss, even if the final figure could have been reached by a competent valuer using a different reasoning process.

The defendant submitted that if the final figure was one which a reasonably competent valuer could have reached, the valuer could not be held to be negligent.

Ian Gatt QC and Philip Rubens, solicitor (of Finers Stephens Innocent) for the claimant; Robert Howe (instructed by Simmons & Simmons) for the defendant.

Held, giving judgment for the defendant, that in valuation cases, where the figures were impugned as figures, it was a necessary precondition of liability that the impugned figure fell outside the bracket of figures which could be reached by a competent valuer; and that, since the defendant's valuation fell within the permissible bracket of figures, there could be no finding of negligence.