B v Reading Borough Council & Ors

A court should not revisit an interlocutory decision of a court of equal jurisdiction unless there has been a material change of circumstances or the earlier judge was misled. Findings made in care proceedings do not ordinarily determine, by issue estoppel or abuse of process, whether professionals acted dishonestly or in bad faith when those issues were not necessary to the care decision and were not fairly tried. The investigation of suspected crime remains within the police immunity principle unless an exceptional circumstance justifies a departure. Misfeasance in public office requires subjective bad faith, including knowledge or subjective recklessness as to the absence of power and probable injury. Serious errors of judgment or substandard practice do not, without more, establish that tort or conspiracy.

The claimant alleged that a social worker and police officer had mishandled allegations that he had sexually abused his daughter. He claimed against the local authorities and the Chief Constable in negligence, misfeasance in public office and conspiracy.

Earlier care proceedings had concluded that the alleged abuse had not occurred, and the care judge had criticised the social worker and police officer. Astill J had refused to treat those findings as conclusively determining issues in the present proceedings. The Court of Appeal had subsequently struck out the local authority duty-of-care claims and left the remaining misfeasance and conspiracy claims for trial. The central issues were whether the earlier findings should be treated as determinative, whether any actionable duty of care was owed, and whether the defendants had acted in bad faith.

1. Earlier findings. The court refused to revisit Astill J’s interlocutory decision. Under