Sanders v Snell [1998] HCA 64

Sanders v Snell [1998] HCA 64

The appellant did not procure or induce the breach of the respondent's employment contract; the Bureau's termination was its own choice. There was no actionable interference with economic interests as the act was not unlawful in the relevant sense, and the requirements for misfeasance in public office were not established as there was no finding that the appellant acted knowingly beyond power or with the requisite intention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Full Court of the Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; application for special leave to cross-appeal refused; orders of Full Court set aside; new trial limited to the misfeasance claim ordered.
Legal Topics
['inducing Breach of Contract' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'procedural Fairness' 'interference With Economic Interests']
['tort Law' 'employment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['inducing Breach of Contract' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'procedural Fairness' 'interference With Economic Interests']

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 / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Full Court of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant induced a breach of contract' 'Whether the appellant committed the tort of interference with economic interests' 'Whether misfeasance in public office was established by denial of procedural fairness']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not procure or induce the breach of the respondent's employment contract; the Bureau's termination was its own choice. There was no actionable interference with economic interests as the act was not unlawful in the relevant sense, and the requirements for misfeasance in public office were not established as there was no finding that the appellant acted knowingly beyond power or with the requisite intention.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; application for special leave to cross-appeal refused; orders of Full Court set aside; new trial limited to the misfeasance claim ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Application for special leave to cross-appeal refused with costs.' 'Orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court made 9 April 1997 set aside.' "In lieu, order that: (i) the appeal be allowed in part; (ii) the cross-appeal be allowed in part; (iii) Paragraph 1 of the judgment entered...