(Full Court of Victoria)
 VR 715
Approved – Farrington v Thomson and Bridgland 1959
(Supreme Court of Victoria) Smith J said: ‘Proof of damage is, of course, necessary in addition. In my view, therefore, the rule should be taken to go this far at least, that if a public officer does an act which, to his knowledge, amounts to an . .
Mentioned – 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.240000