TPKN v The Ministry of Defence

TPKN v The Ministry of Defence

The appeal was allowed because the Master erred in failing to give appropriate weight to the cumulative facts pleaded by the Claimant, erred in finding the SPA’s exercise of jurisdiction irrelevant to vicarious liability, and wrongly struck out the misfeasance claim without giving the Claimant an opportunity to address the issue. There were triable issues of fact and compelling reasons for trial.

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 allowed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Misfeasance in Public Office, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jurisdiction
Tort Law Employment Law Military Law Vicarious Liability Misfeasance in Public Office Summary Judgment Strike Out Jurisdiction

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 Defendant is vicariously liable for the alleged torts committed by TS
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 55-58 of the Claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim disclose reasonable grounds for misfeasance in public office
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the Service Prosecuting Authority is relevant to vicarious liability

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Master erred in failing to give appropriate weight to the cumulative facts pleaded by the Claimant, erred in finding the SPA’s exercise of jurisdiction irrelevant to vicarious liability, and wrongly struck out the misfeasance claim without giving the Claimant an opportunity to address the issue. There were triable issues of fact and compelling reasons for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike out of paragraphs 55-58 of the Amended Particulars of Claim set aside
  • Summary judgment in favour of Defendant set aside