Tsakirios v NSW

[2026] NSWCA 132

NSW Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Torts
2. › Misfeasance in public office
3. › Elements of the tort — public power and public duty
1. Torts
2. › Misfeasance in public office
3. › Omissions — failure to comply with statutory duty
1. Torts
2. › Misfeasance in public office
3. › Whether duty must be owed to claimant individually or as member of class
1. Criminal procedure
2. › Prosecution disclosure obligations
3. › Section 15A Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW) — nature and characterisation of duty

The tort of misfeasance in public office can be founded on an omission to comply with a legal duty applying to the exercise of public power, where the failure to act was such that it would have been capable of being subject to a court order compelling compliance; the duty in s 15A of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW) is a public duty in the relevant sense, not merely a duty owed to the DPP.
It is not necessary to establish the tort that the public officer owed a duty not to commit the particular abuse complained of to the claimant individually or as a member of a class (Tampion v Anderson and Cannon v Tahche not followed on this point).
A primary judge's substantial reproduction of one party's written submissions does not per se establish a failure to bring an independent mind to bear on the issues; the core question is whether the judge independently decided the issues in dispute, and there is no distinct criterion of inadequacy of reasons that justice has not been 'seen to have been done'.