Misfeasance in public office
Misfeasance in Public Office
Misfeasance in public office is a tort in common law. It occurs when a public officer knowingly abuses their power, or acts maliciously or in bad faith, resulting in harm to another person. This is a deliberate wrongful act by a public official in the course of their duties.
🔍 Key Elements of Misfeasance in Public Office
To establish misfeasance, a claimant must prove:
Public Office: The defendant holds a public office.
Unlawful Act: The officer acted unlawfully.
Malice or Knowledge of Wrongdoing:
The official knew they were acting unlawfully, and
Either intended to harm the claimant or knew that their actions would likely harm the claimant.
Damage: The claimant suffered harm (usually financial loss) as a result.
📚 Leading Cases on Misfeasance in Public Office
Below are several detailed case studies that illustrate how the courts have interpreted and applied this tort:
1. Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 3) [2000]
📌 Facts:
Related to the collapse of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).
The liquidators of BCCI sued the Bank of England, alleging that it knowingly allowed BCCI to continue trading despite being insolvent, thereby causing losses to depositors.
⚖️ Decision:
The House of Lords clarified the two types of misfeasance:
Targeted malice: The official intended to injure the claimant.
Untargeted malice: The official knowingly acted unlawfully and was reckless as to the consequences.
The case failed on facts (insufficient evidence of bad faith), but it defined and refined the tort.
🧠 Key Principle:
Malice or reckless disregard is essential.
The public officer must know they are acting beyond their powers and that their conduct will likely cause harm.
2. Bourgoin SA v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986]
📌 Facts:
Bourgoin, a French company, imported frozen poultry into the UK.
The Ministry wrongfully banned imports under the wrong EC regulation, causing heavy losses to Bourgoin.
⚖️ Decision:
The court found that the Ministry knowingly used the wrong regulation.
The act was deliberately unlawful, and the Ministry was liable.
🧠 Key Principle:
Even if the motive isn't personal malice, reckless misuse of power, knowing it is unlawful, can suffice.
3. Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] AC 158
📌 Facts:
A local council approved a building plan contrary to its own planning rules.
The plaintiff (Dunlop) bought the land based on that approval, only to find later that the council had acted unlawfully.
⚖️ Decision:
The Privy Council held there was no misfeasance because the council didn’t act maliciously or knowingly unlawfully.
🧠 Key Principle:
Negligence or mistake by a public officer is not enough.
There must be knowledge of illegality or reckless disregard.
4. Roncarelli v Duplessis [1959] SCR 121 (Canada)
📌 Facts:
Roncarelli was a restaurant owner in Quebec.
He posted bail for Jehovah's Witnesses (then persecuted by authorities).
Premier Duplessis ordered the cancellation of his liquor license solely because of Roncarelli’s support for the Witnesses.
⚖️ Decision:
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Duplessis abused his power by acting outside legal authority and for an improper purpose.
🧠 Key Principle:
Personal vendetta or political bias in decision-making by public officials can constitute misfeasance.
5. Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 332 (New Zealand)
📌 Facts:
Garrett sued the police, claiming they maliciously failed to investigate her rape complaint.
⚖️ Decision:
The New Zealand Court of Appeal rejected the claim.
The plaintiff could not prove malice or knowledge of wrongdoing.
Officers made mistakes, but mistakes are not misfeasance.
🧠 Key Principle:
Misfeasance requires clear evidence of bad faith or knowing abuse of power.
Mere incompetence or error does not meet the threshold.
6. Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] QB 335
📌 Facts:
Concerned prosecutorial decision-making.
Plaintiffs were detained for longer than necessary due to Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) delays.
⚖️ Decision:
Court held that while the delays were regrettable, there was no deliberate abuse of power or malice.
🧠 Key Principle:
Misfeasance claims cannot succeed unless there is intentional wrongdoing or reckless indifference.
🧾 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Key Element | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Three Rivers (No. 3) | Defined scope: targeted/untargeted malice | Claim failed |
| Bourgoin | Knowingly applied wrong law | Claim succeeded |
| Dunlop | Mistake in planning approval | Claim failed |
| Roncarelli | Political abuse of power | Claim succeeded |
| Garrett | Alleged malicious inaction by police | Claim failed |
| Elguzouli-Daf | Delays by prosecutors | Claim failed |
🔑 Conclusion
Misfeasance in public office is a serious tort that aims to hold public officials accountable when they:
Act beyond their legal powers,
Know their actions are unlawful, and
Cause foreseeable harm.
But the burden of proof is high. The claimant must prove bad faith, recklessness, or targeted malice, not just negligence or error.
RELATED Blog
0 comments