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 exercised public power with the requisite bad faith, malice, or knowledge/reckless indifference to unlawfulness and probable injury to the claimant. There was insufficient credible evidence of improper motivation, personal gain, or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1087 (QB)
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 Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Vicarious Liability, Local Government Liability, Abuse of Power
Tort Law Public Law Misfeasance in Public Office Vicarious Liability Local Government Liability Abuse of Power

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 Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Keith Williams committed the tort of misfeasance in public office against the claimant
  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 exercised public power with the requisite bad faith, malice, or knowledge/reckless indifference to unlawfulness and probable injury to the claimant. There was insufficient credible evidence of improper motivation, personal gain, or causative abuse of office. Accordingly, the tort of misfeasance in public office was not established and no vicarious liability attached to the Council.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

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