Greville v Sprake

Misfeasance in public office requires bad faith. This is so whether the claim rests on targeted malice or on an officer knowingly acting without power in a way likely to injure the claimant. An honest belief that the act is lawful defeats the latter form of the tort, even if a statement made by the officer was untrue.

Fresh evidence on appeal is admissible only if it could not reasonably have been obtained for trial, would probably have an important effect on the result, and appears credible. A landlord’s declaration to a public authority, an enforcement notice, or the receipt of rent does not itself create or vary a tenancy.

The claimant appealed against Judge Worsley’s order in the Norwich County Court dismissing two claims. The first alleged misfeasance in public office after the respondent, a parish councillor, spoke at a closed part of a parish council meeting about works at Church Cottage. The second alleged trespass to land said to form part of the tenancy of Church Cottage.

The trial judge found that the respondent’s statement was false and made in his capacity as a councillor, but that he and the council acted in good faith. The judge also found that the disputed land had never formed part of the tenancy. The claimant sought to rely on further documents on appeal and advanced arguments based on an enforcement notice and a landlord’s declaration.

The central issues were whether good faith defeated the misfeasance claim, whether the fresh evidence could be admitted, and whether the material relied upon altered the tenancy’s extent.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Kennedy LJ gave the judgment, with Jonathan Parker and Dyson LJJ agreeing. None of the grounds of appeal was made out.

2. Following Three Rivers District Council v The Governor of the Bank of England (No 3) [2000] 2 WLR 1220, bad faith was essential to both recognised forms of misfeasance in public office. The first involved targeted malice. The second involved an officer knowing both that he lacked power to do the impugned act and that it would probably injure the claimant. The trial judge’s finding that the respondent and others acted in good faith was open to him on the evidence. It therefore defeated the claim, notwithstanding that the respondent’s account of the works was inaccurate.

3. The finding that the disputed land was not within the 1981 tenancy was also open to the trial judge. A statutory declaration by a landlord and the receipt of public money did not create or alter a tenancy. Nor did an enforcement notice or its plan grant a new tenancy or enlarge an existing one. Neither party to the appeal was a party to the tenancy agreement.

4. The proposed fresh evidence failed the criteria in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489. It could, with reasonable diligence, have been obtained for trial. It also lacked probable significant influence on the result, although it appeared credible.

5. On costs, the court applied the limits for litigants in person under the Civil Procedure Rules. The successful respondent was awarded £238, comprising £185 for 20 hours’ preparation and £53 travelling expenses. HM Customs and Excise v Chitolie was not to be treated as a useful future guide on litigant-in-person costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the claimant’s appeal: [2001] EWCA Civ 234.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — a different division granted permission to appeal on 4 April 2000 after the county court judge had refused permission.
• Norwich County Court — on 30 July 1999, Judge Worsley dismissed both the misfeasance and trespass claims.