A solicitor or firm retained by contract to represent a government minister in administrative proceedings does not hold a 'public office' for the purposes of the tort of misfeasance in public office, even where the solicitor exercises significant discretion in the conduct of the proceedings. The tort of collateral abuse of process can only be committed by a party to the proceedings, not by a legal representative. Allegations that a legal representative used improper means to achieve success in proceedings do not disclose a collateral purpose sufficient for the tort — the purpose must be 'beyond the scope of the process'. The scope of advocate's immunity in relation to intentional torts such as misfeasance in public office and collateral abuse of process remains uncertain and is not suitable for summary determination.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 59 later cases that cite this judgment.
12 of the 59 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.