Businessman Henry Talbot did not maliciously prosecute the Bromby brothers, the Chief Justice ruled on Friday.

In 2004, Mr. Talbot accused competitive sailor Peter, 44, and John, 51, of assaulting him during a property dispute relating to Gilbert's Bay Beach in Somerset.

The pair took exception to the 77-year-old bulldozing rock formations at the beach, which is situated near their homes in East Shore Road, Sandys, and Mr. Bromby's home in East Shore Drive.

The brothers admitted confronting him armed with a pipe and a hoe-handle, saying they did so in anticipation that they might need to defend themselves against Mr. Talbot's dogs.

However, they maintained their innocence over his claims that they threatened and physically assaulted him.

The brothers were convicted in Magistrates' Court in 2005 of assault and threatening words, but saw their names cleared the following year when they appealed to the Supreme Court.

In April, the brothers took action against Mr. Talbot in a civil case, claiming he knew the charges were false, and told two of his employees to give false evidence against them.

They further alleged that Mr. Talbot only complained about them after the fact having not reported any assault on the day of the incident to "get back" at them over a newspaper article. This article highlighted concerns that his construction project was destroying long tail nests.

They asked Chief Justice Richard Ground to order that Mr. Talbot, a construction and waste contractor, pay them $17,929 for lost earnings and legal fees. They also claimed $30,000 for damage to their reputations. Mr. Talbot dropped a rival compensation claim for $80,000 midway through the April hearing. He had originally claimed the money for stomach injuries allegedly sustained at their hands, lost wages and pain and suffering.

However Mr. Talbot told the court later that he wanted nothing of the sort, and didn't understand why his former lawyer Kenrick James began the action on his behalf. He continued to contest the malicious prosecution case, with his lawyer, Rick Woolridge, insisting he did give a credible account of what happened at the beach.

He pointed to a bruise on Mr. Talbot's stomach which the senior noticed 18 days after the incident as evidence that he was indeed assaulted and had valid reason to go to the Police. However, the Bromby brothers' lawyer Richard Horseman asked the judge to find in their favour. He said the fact that Mr. Talbot made no allegation of assault when Police came to the scene, and only noticed the bruise more than two weeks later, "defies human nature, and I would say it's completely unbelievable".

Finding against the Bromby brothers yesterday, and ruling that the prosecution was not malicious, Mr. Justice Ground said the issue boiled down to whether Mr. Talbot was telling a lie when he alleged to the Police and the Magistrates' Court that the brothers threatened him.

He said if Mr. Talbot was lying, that would be "strong evidence of malice" in bringing the prosecution. He also noted that since the trial was a civil one, not a criminal one, the burden of proof was on the brothers to show Mr. Talbot prosecuted them maliciously. The Chief Justice said he was satisfied the brothers did verbally abuse Mr. Talbot.

It was, he said: "Utterly inappropriate to carry weapons to a dispute, and the fact that they did so colours all that follows."

He continued: "In all the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the defendant was lying when he said that he was assaulted. The parties were heated. Things were moving quickly. In such situations the observations of witnesses can be uncertain.

It may well be that the various discrepancies were such that no court could be sure that the defendant was telling the truth which was the test at the criminal trial but they do not mean that I can conclude that he was probably telling a lie which was the test at this trial."

He concluded that he was not persuaded that Mr. Talbot was deliberately lying, and therefore dismissed the prosecution claim.

The Chief Justice also noted that the Bromby brothers have put in a legal bill for almost $3,000 plus tax, and said he would adjourn the matter of costs to be debated at a later date. Mr. Talbot welcomed the ruling, telling The Royal Gazette afterwards: "I shouldn't have been there (in court). I thought it was ridiculous."

Richard Horseman, lawyer for the Bromby brothers, said: "They are disappointed with the ruling. They thought they'd provided sufficient evidence to the court to make out a case of malicious prosecution."