Perma-Soil UK Ltd v Williams & Anor [2016] EWHC 1087 (QB) (10 May 2016)

Perma-Soil UK Ltd v Williams & Anor [2016] EWHC 1087 (QB) (10 May 2016)

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Keith Williams acted in bad faith with the requisite intention or knowledge to satisfy the tort of misfeasance in public office. The evidence did not establish that Williams had a financial interest in the rival company, nor that he exercised public...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1087
Parties
Claimant: Perma-Soil UK Limited; First Defendant: Keith Williams; Second Defendant: Flintshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Vicarious Liability, Abuse of Power, Local Government Liability
Tort Law Public Law Misfeasance in Public Office Vicarious Liability Abuse of Power Local Government Liability

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perma-Soil UK Limited

Claimant

Keith Williams

First Defendant

Flintshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Keith Williams committed the tort of misfeasance in public office against Perma-Soil UK Limited
  2. 2 Whether Flintshire County Council is vicariously liable for any such misfeasance
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered actionable loss as a result of the alleged misfeasance

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Keith Williams acted in bad faith with the requisite intention or knowledge to satisfy the tort of misfeasance in public office. The evidence did not establish that Williams had a financial interest in the rival company, nor that he exercised public power with the intention to injure the claimant or with reckless disregard for the law and probable injury. The breakdown in business relations and the approval of the rival product were not shown to be the result of unlawful or malicious conduct by Williams. Accordingly, no liability attached to Williams or the Council.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for damages for misfeasance in public office dismissed
  • No order as to damages or further relief