(New South Wales) The landowner made and allegation of damage caused to him by the passing planning resolutions, which were in fact invalid, restricting the height of his proposed building.
Held: A local body when exercising a public function such as those relating to town planning can be liable for misfeasance. Lord Diplock described the tort of misfeasance in public office as ‘well established’
His pleading alleged that the council: ‘was a public corporate body which occupied office and was incorporated by a public statute . . and the [council] abused its said office and public duty under the said statute by purporting to pass each of the said resolutions with the consequence that damage was occasioned to [Dr Dunlop].’ As to which Lord Dunlop replied: ‘In pleading in paragraph 15A of the statement of claim that the council abused their public office and public duty the plaintiff was relying upon the well-established tort of misfeasance by a public officer in the discharge of his public duties … their Lordships agree with [the trial judge’s] conclusion that, in the absence of malice, passing without knowledge of its invalidity a resolution which is devoid of any legal effect is not conduct that of itself is capable of amounting to such ‘misfeasance’ as is a necessary element in this tort.’
[1981] UKPC 10, [1982] AC 158, [1981] 1 All ER 1202
Bailii
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Elliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire and Others ChD 20-Nov-1996
Vice-Chancellor was asked to consider whether to strike out a statement of claim based upon alleged misfeasance by a police officer in his public office. The allegation against the police officer was that he had deliberately and falsely supplied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Local Government
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.443949