Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
0053796 AI generated

Malicious litigation requires intentional wrongdoing, not mere temerity, and legal interpretation disputes do not constitute abuse of right.

Case Number 0053796
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the claim that the appellant acted as a malicious litigant, ruling that only essentially intentional conduct justifies such a finding. While the appellant argued for abuse of right based on their legal strategy, the court held that mere temerity or disagreement on legal interpretation is insufficient. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed to overturn the malicious litigant designation, affirming that the lower court erred in attributing abuse of right to the appellant's contested legal arguments.

Legislator headnote

Official

LITIGÂNCIA DE MÁ FÉ ABUSO DE DIREITO

Keywords

AI generated
malicious litigation abuse of right temerity legal interpretation intentional wrongdoing civil procedure litigant status

Cited Legislation

AI generated
CPC67 Art. 456

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

[Nº CONVENCIONAL] JTRL00009168

[Nº DO DOCUMENTO] RL199304290053796

[PRIVACIDADE] 1

[PROCESSO NO TRIBUNAL RECURSO] 6164/911

[TEXTO INTEGRAL] N

[TRIBUNAL RECURSO] T CIV LISBOA 6J

[URL] https://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/FDF2C2F8CB08FFC58025680300015B09?OpenDocument

SUMÁRIO

Só a lide essencialmente dolosa e não a meramente temerária justifica a condenação como litigante de má fé.

A discordância na interpretação da lei e na sua aplicação aos factos é faculdade que não pode ser coarctada e não serve de fundamento à atribuição, por essa atitude, de abuso do direito.