The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaim alleging malicious prosecution, unlawful interference with economic relations, and various claims for damages arising from an earlier injunction and the termination of a referral relationship.
The court held that the defendants failed to establish the elements required for malicious prosecution, particularly malice, and that the inclusion of parties in civil litigation was insufficient to ground such a claim.
Claims for intentional or unlawful interference with economic relations also failed because the evidence did not demonstrate an intention by the plaintiffs to cause economic harm.
The court further found that damages related to the interim injunction should be pursued through enforcement of the undertaking for damages rather than by counterclaim.
Partial summary judgment was granted dismissing most of the counterclaim, with leave granted to amend the counterclaim to seek damages tied specifically to the injunction period.
