Ea v Diaconu

The appeal concerned a claim of misfeasance in public office brought by the applicant, Ea, against police officers, including the first and third respondents. The applicant alleged that the conduct of a police officer during her trial, specifically laughing and rolling her eyes, constituted misfeasance in public office. The primary judge had summarily dismissed the applicant's statement of claim.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the applicant's statement of claim and particulars disclosed a cause of action for misfeasance in public office, and whether the claim was so hopeless or doomed to fail that it ought to be summarily dismissed. This involved determining whether the alleged conduct of the police officer amounted to a purported exercise of a public power or duty, or an act done in the capacity incidental to a public office.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's allegations, as pleaded, did not disclose a cause of action for misfeasance in public office. The court reasoned that the conduct described, while potentially unprofessional, did not constitute an exercise of a public power or duty in the manner required for the tort. The court also considered the claim for malicious prosecution, finding that it was also unsustainable.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal against the second respondent, and allowed the appeal against the first and third respondents. The court set aside the primary judge's orders and summarily dismissed the proceedings against the second respondent. The proceedings against the first and third respondents were summarily dismissed in so far as they alleged malicious prosecution, but otherwise, the respondents' notice of motion was dismissed. The court ordered the first and third respondents to pay the appellant's costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal, and remitted the question of costs of the hearing of the respondents' notice of motion to the Common Law Division.