Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin [2017] FCAFC 59

Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin [2017] FCAFC 59

The Shire and its CEO, Mr Friend, committed misfeasance in public office by maliciously making misleading complaints to regulatory authorities intending to harm Mr Nyoni's professional reputation and business, with such acts being within the exercise of power attaching to public office. Other claims for trespass, false statements, and misleading conduct in trade or commerce failed on evidentiary and legal grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
['misfeasance in Public Office' 'trespass' 'defamation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'local Government Law']
['torts' 'consumer Law'] ['misfeasance in Public Office' 'trespass' 'defamation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'local Government Law']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether misfeasance in public office was committed by the Shire of Kellerberrin and its CEO' 'Whether trespass occurred in the 2007 and 2010 pharmacy incidents' 'Whether the publication of Council minutes was in trade or commerce and misleading or deceptive' 'Whether false statements by Shire agents constituted actionable malicious falsehood or misleading conduct']

Ratio Decidendi

The Shire and its CEO, Mr Friend, committed misfeasance in public office by maliciously making misleading complaints to regulatory authorities intending to harm Mr Nyoni's professional reputation and business, with such acts being within the exercise of power attaching to public office. Other claims for trespass, false statements, and misleading conduct in trade or commerce failed on evidentiary and legal grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in part as against first and second respondents; dismissed as against third, fourth and fifth respondents.' 'Orders of 23 November 2015 varied as specified.' 'Proceedings remitted to primary judge to assess damages and costs as between applicant and first and second respondents.' "First and second...