JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 May 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 August 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mullett v Nixon & ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 512 First Revision, 5 September 2016, [16](ii), [17](i), FN 379

---

TORTS - Misfeasance in Public Office – Plaintiff former head of The Police Association – Suspended from Victoria Police – Whether or not suspension constituted misfeasance in public office – Elements of the tort – Targeted malice – Whether or not suspensions invalid or unauthorised – whether or not prosecution of plaintiff invalid or unauthorised – Standard of proof - Northern Territory v Mengel (1994) 185 CLR 307 – Sanders v Snell (No 2) (2003) 130 FRC 149 – Sanders v Snell (1998) 197 CLR 329 – Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.

TORTS – Malicious Prosecution – Elements of the tort – Whether or not proceedings initiated, instigated or continued against the plaintiff by the first defendant – Whether or not proceedings actuated by an improper purpose – meaning of improper purpose – Whether or not the defendants acted without reasonable and probable cause in prosecuting the plaintiff – Standard of proof - A v New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500 – Commonwealth Life Assurance Society Ltd v Brain (1935) 53 CLR 343.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Plaintiff

Mr R. Richter QC

Mr M. Tovey QC

Mr A. Panna QC

Stephens Lawyers and Consultants

For the Defendant

Mr C. Caleo QC
Ms R. Orr QC
Mr L. Brown
Mr S. Hay

Mr D. McCredden

Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background to proceedings............................................................................................................. 1

A. The Torts......................................................................................................................................... 4

Misfeasance in Public Office....................................................................................................... 4
Malicious Prosecution.................................................................................................................. 9
Standard of proof........................................................................................................................ 12

B. The souring of relations............................................................................................................. 14

C. Narrative of events...................................................................................................................... 18

The First Suspension.................................................................................................................. 18
Charges and Prosecution, Second Suspension....................................................................... 24

D. Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 29

MOTIVE....................................................................................................................................... 29
THE FIRST SUSPENSION.......................................................................................................... 31
Christine Nixon: Misfeasance in Public Office............................................................ 31
Was the First Suspension invalid or unauthorised?....................................... 31
Was the first suspension actuated by malice?................................................. 47

CHARGES, PROSECUTION, AND THE SECOND SUSPENSION..................................... 50
Evidence of Christine Nixon............................................................................. 51
Evidence of Wayne Taylor................................................................................. 52
Evidence of Kieran Walshe................................................................................ 56
Evidence of A/C Cornelius................................................................................ 60

Christine Nixon: Misfeasance in Public Office............................................................ 61
Christine Nixon: Malicious Prosecution....................................................................... 62
Wayne Taylor: Malicious Prosecution.......................................................................... 63
Malice............................................................................................................................................ 63
Reasonable and probable cause...................................................................................... 66
Subjective limb..................................................................................................... 66
Objective limb....................................................................................................... 67

Kieran Walshe: Misfeasance in Public Office.............................................................. 87
The s 79(2) suspension...................................................................................................... 89
Authorisation of the prosecution.................................................................................... 90
Kieran Walshe: Malicious Prosecution......................................................................... 92
Malice............................................................................................................................................ 92
Reasonable and probable cause...................................................................................... 95
Objective limb....................................................................................................... 95
Subjective limb.....................................................................................................…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mullett v Nixon

Details

AGLC: Mullett v Nixon [2016] VSC 512
Case: [2016] VSC 512
Decision Date: 31 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mullett v Nixon, the plaintiff, a former head of The Police Association, sought to establish claims of misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution against the defendants, who were public officials. The plaintiff alleged that his suspension from Victoria Police constituted misfeasance in public office and that the proceedings against him were maliciously prosecuted. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the suspension of the plaintiff was invalid or unauthorised, and whether it constituted misfeasance in public office. Additionally, the court had to determine if the prosecution of the plaintiff was invalid or unauthorised, and whether it amounted to malicious prosecution. The court had to examine the elements of both torts, including targeted malice, improper purpose, and lack of reasonable and probable cause. The standard of proof required for each claim was also a significant aspect of the case.

The court held that the suspension of the plaintiff was not invalid or unauthorised, and therefore did not constitute misfeasance in public office. Furthermore, the court found that the proceedings against the plaintiff were not actuated by an improper purpose and were based on reasonable and probable cause. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims of misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution were dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of the standard of proof in such cases, particularly in light of relevant precedents.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding.

Orders