B v Reading Borough Council & Ors

B v Reading Borough Council & Ors

The judge found that the public officers believed they were acting properly for a lawful purpose and were not subjectively reckless or aware of wrongdoing; thus, the claim for misfeasance in public office failed. The actions of the police officer fell squarely within the investigation of suspected crime, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: B; Respondent: Reading Borough Council; Respondent: Wokingham District Council; Respondent: Chief Constable Thames Valley Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Conspiracy, Negligence, Duty of Care, Police Immunity
Tort Law Public Law Misfeasance in Public Office Conspiracy Negligence Duty of Care Police Immunity

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Appellant

Reading Borough Council

Respondent

Wokingham District Council

Respondent

Chief Constable Thames Valley Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the actions of public officers amounted to misfeasance in public office or conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether the police owed a duty of care in negligence to the claimant during the investigation of suspected crime
  3. 3 Whether exceptions to the Hill principle apply in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that the public officers believed they were acting properly for a lawful purpose and were not subjectively reckless or aware of wrongdoing; thus, the claim for misfeasance in public office failed. The actions of the police officer fell squarely within the investigation of suspected crime, and the Hill principle applied, precluding a duty of care in negligence. No exceptional circumstances justified departure from established principles.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused