Sanders v Snell

(2003) 130 FCR 149; [2003] FCAFC 150

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Misfeasance in public office
3. › Elements of the tort
4. › Targeted malice (first form)
5. › Whether intention to terminate employment constitutes intention to inflict harm
6. › Requirement that intention to inflict harm be the actuating motive
7. › Distinction between intending consequences inherent in proper exercise of power and intending harm as the purpose of the exercise
1. Tort
2. › Misfeasance in public office
3. › Elements of the tort
4. › Knowledge of or reckless indifference to want of power (second form)
5. › Whether failure to accord procedural fairness known to officer
6. › Whether officer cross-examined on knowledge of procedural fairness requirement
7. › Whether constructive knowledge sufficient
1. Tort
2. › Misfeasance in public office
3. › Scope and confinement of liability
4. › Policy and principle requiring close confinement
5. › Ultra vires act alone insufficient
6. › Requirement of dishonest abuse of power
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Disqualification of judge
3. › Retrial before same judge
4. › Whether findings at first trial on related issues give rise to apprehended bias
5. › Whether retrial on unresolved cause of action analogous to determination of remaining issues after preliminary finding

Quick Take

Where a public officer directs the termination of a person's employment, the first form of misfeasance in public office (targeted malice) requires that the intention to inflict harm be the actuating motive for the exercise of power; it is insufficient to show that the officer intended to terminate the employment and that harm resulted, if the officer's purpose was to remove the employee for reasons within the proper scope of the power (such as perceived incompetence). For the second form of the tort, the officer must be shown to have had actual knowledge or reckless indifference to the requirement of procedural fairness as a condition of the validity of the direction; constructive knowledge or imputed indifference is insufficient.