Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealth countries. It is an action against the holder of a public office , alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power. [ 1 ]
In December 2020, the Law Commission issued a report recommending the common law offence of misconduct in public office be abolished, and replaced with two new statutory offences; one of 'corruption in public office' and another of 'breach of duty in public office'. [13] As of 2024, the government has not issued a response to the report. [14]
Misfeasance in public office Three Rivers District Council v Governor of the Bank of England [2001] UKHL 16 [ 3 ] is a UK banking law and EU law case concerning government liability for the protection of depositors and the preliminary ruling procedure in the European Union.
Misfeasance in public office is considered to be a special kind of public law tort. It occurs when there is a malicious or deliberate exercise or non-exercise of a statutory or common law power by an official which causes loss to a plaintiff which has been foreseen. [8]
Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice. Malfeasance is the willful and intentional action that injures a party. For example, if a company hires a catering company to provide drinks and food for a retirement party, and the catering company fails to show up, it is considered nonfeasance.
Abuse of power or abuse of authority, in the form of "malfeasance in office" or "official abuse of power", is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often a just cause for removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.
Watkins v Home Office and others [2006] UKHL 17, was a United Kingdom legal case heard by the House of Lords where the Home Office made an appeal as to whether the tort of misfeasance in public office was actionable in the absence of proof of pecuniary losses or injury of a mental or physical nature.
Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126, is a foundational case in UK constitutional law and English tort law.It concerns the right to vote and misfeasance of a public officer. Lord Holt laid down the important principle that where there is injury in the absence of financial loss (injuria sine damno) the law makes the presumption of damage and that it is sufficient to demonstrate that a right has been ...