Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin (No 6)

The case of Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin (No 6) involved a dispute between Mr Nyoni, the owner of the Kellerberrin pharmacy, and the Shire of Kellerberrin. The Shire had published minutes of a Council meeting on its website, which contained references to shortcomings in the provision of services by the pharmacy. Mr Nyoni alleged that the Shire's conduct was "in trade or commerce" and that the minutes made representations about the shortcomings of the pharmacy. Additionally, there were claims of trespass when an electrical contractor disconnected the electricity to the pharmacy premises, and misfeasance in public office due to the Shire officer passing on misleading information to regulatory authorities.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Shire's conduct in publishing the minutes constituted conduct "in trade or commerce" under consumer law, whether the electrical contractor's disconnection of electricity constituted trespass, and whether the Shire officer's passing on of misleading information amounted to misfeasance in public office. The court had to determine whether the Shire's actions were within the scope of trade or commerce, and if the electrical contractor had lawful authority to disconnect the electricity. Furthermore, the court needed to assess if the Shire officer's actions in passing on misleading information were sufficient to constitute misfeasance in public office.

The court found that the Shire's conduct in publishing the minutes did not amount to conduct "in trade or commerce" as it did not involve any form of commercial activity. The court also determined that the electrical contractor did not trespass when disconnecting the electricity as he had notified the Shire officer in advance of his intention to do so. Regarding misfeasance in public office, the court found that the Shire officer's actions in passing on misleading information did not constitute misfeasance in public office as she was not exercising a power or authority that would attract potential liability for the tort. The court dismissed the applicant's claims against the first to fourth respondents and ordered the fifth respondent to pay the applicant $12,000 for trespass. The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs of the first to fourth respondents, and the fifth respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs in relation to the claim against the fifth respondent.