Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4004 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Found this on TPUC forum. Can we use it when judges refuse to obey the law? e.g. If they make an enforcement order in violation of sec 127(3)

 

'Misfeasance in Public Office’ is a term frequently used when a public official does his job in a way that is not technically illegal, but nevertheless he is mistaken or wrong.

 

Parliament intended that statutory powers were exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were conferred.

 

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office was designed to target ‘the deliberate and dishonest abuse of power’ in the event of a person suffering loss or damage as a result of administrative action known to be unlawful or carried out with reckless disregard or indifference to the consequences.

 

The offence of ‘Malfeasance’ takes the reckless element a stage further and is when a public official intentionally does something either legally or morally wrong which he had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. It is conduct in violation of the law.

 

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is an intentional tort that can be committed only by a public official and the core concept is abuse of power. This in turn involves other concepts, such as dishonesty, bad faith, and improper purpose.

 

Power is granted to a public official for a public purpose. It is an abuse of that power for him to exercise it for his own private purposes, whether out of spite, malice, revenge, or merely self-advancement.

 

If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences the official cannot argue that he did not intend the consequences of his actions or that they were not aimed at the person who he knew would suffer loss.

 

In a legal system underpinned by the rule of law, administrative power must be exercised in good faith and not for ulterior or improper purposes. Where it can be shown that a body or official was not acting in good faith, liability in the tort of misfeasance in public office might exist.

 

The constituent elements of the tort of misfeasance are as follows:

 

1. That the act or conduct has been committed by a public officer.

2. The act or conduct must have been done by him in the purported exercise of his power as a public officer.

3. That the act or conduct must have been done either:

1. maliciously; or

2. knowing that the impugned act or conduct is invalid/unauthorised and knowing that it will probably injure the claimant.

4. The act or conduct must cause loss or harm to the claimant.

 

 

 

There are two forms of liability for misfeasance. The first form of the tort involves targeted malice by a public officer, or in other words, conduct specifically intended to injure a person. Where a public officer had this intention, it is irrelevant whether the public officer exceeded his powers or acted within the letter of the law.

 

The second form of liability applies where the public officer acts knowing he has no power to do the act complained of and that the act will probably injure a person or persons. The element of bad faith arises, as the public officer does not have an honest belief that his conduct is lawful. In this scenario, it is not necessary to show that the public officer acted with the purpose or object of inflicting harm on the claimant.

 

Misfeasance does not require a claimant to identify a legal right that is being infringed or a particular duty owed to him, beyond the right not to be damaged or injured by a deliberate or reckless abuse of power by a public officer.

 

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is concerned with preventing public officials from acting beyond their powers to the injury of the citizen, not with compelling them to exercise the powers they do have, particularly when they have a discretion whether to exercise them or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misfeasance is where a public official does something he/she has something to gain from and it causes harm to a third party. A judge has nothing to gain from his/her decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely if the judge is wrong you appeal? I'd wager that even an appeal to CoA would be cheaper than a misfeasance action...

 

Points for thinking about trying to sue a JUDGE though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Points for thinking about trying to sue a JUDGE though....

 

:eek::eek:

 

Points? He could sell tickets for that one.:D


You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sods law dictates that you'd pick the judge that really knew his stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:eek::eek:

 

Points? He could sell tickets for that one.:D

 

If I sold enough tickets I could pay all my debts :lol:

 

 

surely if the judge is wrong you appeal? I'd wager that even an appeal to CoA would be cheaper than a misfeasance action...

 

What does an appeal cost?

 

I was thinking in terms of the judge knowing the law, it being stated in your defence and the judge then ignoring the law. This is both biased (which is not allowed) and a clear abuse of power. I was hoping it would take the form of a complaint to the ministry of justice or maybe a criminal complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A judge isn't tied to the letter of the law - that's why he is a judge - and he doesn't have to accept your defence. There was a recent case where there was no credit card agreement. The creditor had the card that the debtor had cut up and sent to them. The judge ruled that in the absence of an agreement the card was proof that an agreement had existed and ruled in favour of the creditor. You would be pretty hard pushed to win a malfeasance case against a judge. You couldn't do it yourself and no solicitor would take it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pinky. There's no chance of me sending any cards back now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...