Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 JANUARY 2018

Public misfeasance: What has intent got to do with it? (Part 1)

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Contributor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth is Australia’s leading independent law firm. We provide exceptional legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Corrs Chambers Westgarth

The question of a public officer's intent when enforcing a regulation has been sent to the High Court for consideration.

AustraliaGovernment, Public Sector

Misfeasance in public office is an uncommon tort. Historically, so long as a public officer acted within the scope of their authority, the intention behind enforcing a regulation would not be considered by a court in a claim for public misfeasance.

In a recent decision by the Full Federal Court,1 however, uncertainty has arisen as to whether the authorised enforcement of a regulation by a public officer, done in a malicious way, could in fact be considered a tort and potentially lead to a claim for damages.

The question of a public officer's intent when enforcing a regulation has now been referred to the High Court for its consideration.

The circumstances resulting in the claim of public misfeasance

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from