The plaintiff complained that his election as one of two custodians of London Bridge, a remunerated office, was thwarted by the malicious and unlawful action of the Lord Mayor. It was an action upon the case.
Held: The action would lie. Wylde J: ‘Where an officer does any thing against the duty of his place and office, and a damage thereby accrues to the party, an action lies’.
Archer J: ‘for the particular damage an action lies’. Tyrrel J: ‘this action is for damages for being prevented of having the office’. As to the argument that every action upon the case supposes damnum and injuriam’, since there had been no election it could not be known whether the plaintiff would have been elected, but it would be determined whether he would have been elected and ‘an action of the case lies for a possibility of damage’.
Vaughan CJ said that no damage appeared. All the judges held damage to be an essential ingredient of the cause of action, as would normally (not always) be so of an action on the case; they differed only on whether damage was or could on the facts be sufficiently shown.
Wylde J, Archer J, Tyrrel J, Vaughan CJ (dissenting)
(1671) 2 Vent 24
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England HL 18-May-2000
The applicants alleged misfeasance against the Bank of England in respect of the regulation of a bank.
Held: The Bank could not be sued in negligence, but the tort of misfeasance required clear evidence of misdeeds. The action was now properly . .
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.
Torts – Other
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.194963