Plaintiff M83A/2019 v Morrison (No 2)

In the case of Plaintiff M83A/2019 v Morrison (No 2), the applicants, who were detained on Nauru, sought to hold the respondents, who included the Attorney-General, liable for misfeasance in public office. The applicants contended that the respondents had acted with reckless indifference in the implementation of Australia’s regional processing arrangements. The applicants sought to amend their pleadings to reflect that the respondents had acted with wilful blindness rather than reckless indifference. The respondents applied for the proceeding to be dismissed and for their pleadings to be struck out. The Court was required to determine whether the applicants’ pleadings were sufficient to establish the requisite mental element for the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Court found that the applicants had not pleaded the requisite mental state for the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Court found that the applicants’ pleaded facts did not allege that the respondents acted with wilful blindness, but rather with mere negligence or reckless indifference. The Court found that this did not satisfy the mental element required for the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Court found that the applicants’ proposed amendments to their pleadings would not satisfy the requisite mental element either. The Court found that the applications for summary judgment and to strike out the applicants’ pleadings should be granted. The Court found that the applicants had not established a prima facie case for misfeasance in public office, and that their pleadings were insufficient to meet the requisite mental element for the tort. The Court ordered that the applicants’ pleadings be struck out, and that judgment be entered in favour of the respondents. The Court also ordered that the parties file proposed agreed orders on the costs of the proceeding, or, in the absence of agreement, file written submissions on the appropriate costs orders to be made in the proceeding.