TPKN v The Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 1488 (QB) (12 June 2019)

TPKN v The Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 1488 (QB) (12 June 2019)

The court held that the Master erred in striking out the misfeasance in public office claim, but ultimately found that there was no real prospect of establishing a sufficiently close connection between TS's employment and the alleged assault to impose vicarious liability on the Ministry of Defence. The Service Prosecuting Authority's assumption of jurisdiction was not determinative of vicarious liability, as it arose from statutory provisions applicable to service personnel rather than any employer-employee relationship. The particulars did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for misfeasance in public office, as the alleged acts did not constitute an abuse of public office powers.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1488
Parties
Claimant/appellant: TPKN; Defendant/respondent: The Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Misfeasance in Public Office, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Tort Law Employment Law Military Law Vicarious Liability Misfeasance in Public Office Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TPKN

Claimant/appellant

The Ministry of Defence

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ministry of Defence is vicariously liable for the alleged rape and sexual assault committed by a serviceman against another serviceman on a military base.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a reasonable cause of action for misfeasance in public office.
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the Service Prosecuting Authority is relevant or determinative of vicarious liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Master erred in striking out the misfeasance in public office claim, but ultimately found that there was no real prospect of establishing a sufficiently close connection between TS's employment and the alleged assault to impose vicarious liability on the Ministry of Defence. The Service Prosecuting Authority's assumption of jurisdiction was not determinative of vicarious liability, as it arose from statutory provisions applicable to service personnel rather than any employer-employee relationship. The particulars did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for misfeasance in public office, as the alleged acts did not constitute an abuse of public office powers.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the defendant on the claim for vicarious liability is upheld.
  • Strike out of paragraphs 55-58 of the Amended Particulars of Claim is upheld.