In an allegation of misfeasance in public office, a complainant who says he has been affected by the alleged misfeasance, has sufficient locus standi to claim. Parliamentary materials are admissible to discover purpose of an Act, and not just in cases of ambiguity. ‘The tort of misfeasance in public office is concerned with a deliberate and dishonest wrongful abuse of the powers given to a public officer. It is not to be equated with torts based on an intention to injure, although . . it has some similarities to them. . . Malice, in the sense of intention to injure the plaintiff or a person in a class of which the plaintiff is a member, and knowledge by the officer both that he has no power to do the act complained of and that the act will probably injure the plaintiff or a person in a class of which the plaintiff is a member are alternative, not cumulative, ingredients of the tort. To act with such knowledge is to act in a sufficient sense maliciously.’
Clarke J
Times 22-Apr-1996, [1996] 3 All ER 558, [1996] 3 All ER 634
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bourgoin SA v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food CA 1985
The plaintiffs were French producers of turkeys. They alleged that the Minister revoked their licence to import turkeys into this country by a decision that was ultra vires and motivated by a desire to assist British turkey producers, and that this . .
See Also – Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England ComC 8-Jan-1996
. .
See Also – Three Rivers District Council and Another v The Bank of England (No. 3) ComC 30-Jul-1997
ComC Misfeasance in public office. Assuming ingredients of tort as reported at [1996] 3 ALL ER 558 at 582-3, was claim bound to fail? All plaintiffs’ evidence now available to court. On that evidence plaintiffs . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3) CA 10-Dec-1998
The tort of misfeasance in public office is not separated into two distinct limbs. In each case the Plaintiff must show a deliberate and dishonest abuse of his position by a public official aware of the loss that will follow or reckless as to such a . .
Cited – Barnard v Restormel Borough Council CA 6-Feb-1998
The council appealed a refusal to strike out the proceedings. The claimant alleged misfeasance in a planning decision giving a competitor consent to development. He said the mayor had deceived the planning committee as to the need to consider the . .
See Also – Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England ComC 8-Jan-1996
. .
See Also – Three Rivers District Council and Another v The Bank of England (No. 3) ComC 30-Jul-1997
ComC Misfeasance in public office. Assuming ingredients of tort as reported at [1996] 3 ALL ER 558 at 582-3, was claim bound to fail? All plaintiffs’ evidence now available to court. On that evidence plaintiffs . .
Approved – Garrett v Attorney-General 1997
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) Mr Garrett claimed damages for financial loss and damage to her reputation caused by the alleged failure of the police to investigate her complaint that she had been raped by a police constable in a police station.
Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.89890
