Mullett v Nixon

Mullett v Nixon involved a legal dispute between the plaintiff, Mullett, the former head of The Police Association, and the defendants, Nixon, a police officer, and the Victoria Police. The plaintiff sought damages for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution, both relating to his suspension from the Victoria Police. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court had to decide several legal issues. Firstly, whether the suspension of the plaintiff constituted misfeasance in public office. Secondly, whether the prosecution of the plaintiff was malicious, with improper purpose, and without reasonable and probable cause. The court also considered the standard of proof required in these cases.

In determining these issues, the court examined the elements of the torts and the authorities cited by the parties. The court found that the plaintiff had not discharged the burden of proving misfeasance in public office, as there was no evidence of targeted malice or that the suspension was invalid or unauthorised. Regarding the malicious prosecution claim, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not established that the proceedings were actuated by an improper purpose or that the defendants acted without reasonable and probable cause. The court emphasised the high standard of proof required in these cases, as set out in Northern Territory v Mengel and A v New South Wales.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding.