What are the elements required for abuse of process?

The second element presents a more complex problem. It is well established that the wilful act requirement is not satisfied where the defendant has merely obtained process on nonmeritorious grounds. (See Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines, supra, 198 Cal.App.2d at p. 616, 17 Cal.Rptr. 919; see also Pimentel v. Houk (1951) 101 Cal.App.2d 884, 886-887, 226 P.2d 739.) However, the courts have not clearly specified the nature of the additional allegation that is required.

[41 Cal.3d 803] A degree of definitional imprecision is inevitable with regard to a "catchall" tort: " 'It has been observed by the courts on several occasions that the elements necessary for an action for abuse of process are not clearly defined, either by the cases or by writers on the subject. The reason apparently is that the term has been used as a label for a variety of dissimilar situations which have in common only the fact that actionable injury was inflicted in connection with the use of judicial process and under such circumstances that the narrowly circumscribed action of malicious prosecution was inapplicable.' " (Fairfield v. Hamilton (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 594, 603, 24 Cal.Rptr. 73, quoting 1 Cal.Jur.2d, Abuse of Process, 5, pp. 213-214.)