Perma-Soil UK Ltd v Williams & Anor

Perma-Soil UK Ltd v Williams & Anor

The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the first defendant acted with targeted malice or for personal gain, or that any unlawful conduct by the first defendant caused the claimant loss. The evidence did not establish that the first defendant had a financial interest in SMRec or that his...

Source-derived case information.

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 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Vicarious Liability, Causation, Damages
Tort Law Public Law Misfeasance in Public Office Vicarious Liability Causation Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perma-Soil UK Limited

Claimant

Keith Williams

First Defendant

Flintshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant committed the tort of misfeasance in public office against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the first defendant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered loss as a result of the alleged misfeasance

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the first defendant acted with targeted malice or for personal gain, or that any unlawful conduct by the first defendant caused the claimant loss. The evidence did not establish that the first defendant had a financial interest in SMRec or that his advice or actions regarding product approval were motivated by improper purposes. There was no causative link between the alleged misfeasance and the claimant's loss of business.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed