Pathirage Don Abeyratne vs Gamage Don Chandradasa – CA NO.818/97-2011

In the case between Pathirage Don Abeyratne (Plaintiff–Appellant) and Gamage Don Chandradasa (Defendant–Respondent), the court examined whether a claim for damages for malicious prosecution was sustainable following the plaintiff’s acquittal on contempt of court charges stemming from the defendant’s initial complaint. The primary holding determined that the essential elements required for malicious prosecution—initiation of judicial proceedings by the defendant, lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and a termination in the plaintiff’s favor—were not established. Emphasis was placed on the absence of evidence that the defendant acted maliciously or controlled the prosecution process, as the case was ultimately pursued by the police without direction from the defendant and after a