State of Tasmania v MFC

The State of Tasmania (the appellant) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against a decision of a single judge that a foster parent (the respondent) had an arguable cause of action against the State for misfeasance in public office. The dispute arose from an investigation and report concerning allegations of sexual assault of a child, which the respondent alleged was conducted negligently and maliciously by a public servant, causing damage to the respondent's reputation and livelihood.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the respondent had an arguable case that a public servant, in conducting an investigation and making a report regarding allegations of child sexual assault, owed a duty of care to the foster parent and had acted in a manner that constituted misfeasance in public office. Specifically, the court considered whether the respondent could establish the elements of this tort, including an intention to cause harm or recklessness as to causing harm, and whether the public servant's actions were outside the scope of their lawful authority.

The Full Court, applying established principles of the tort of misfeasance in public office, found that the respondent had not demonstrated an arguable case. The court reasoned that the public servant's actions, even if negligent or erroneous, were undertaken within the scope of their statutory duties and powers related to child protection investigations. Crucially, the respondent failed to establish that the public servant acted with the requisite malice or intent to injure, or that the actions were so far outside the bounds of their authority as to be unlawful. The court distinguished the present case from those where misfeasance has been established, emphasising the need for a deliberate or reckless disregard for the rights of the individual.

The appeal was allowed, and the order of the single judge was set aside. The Full Court concluded that the respondent's claim for misfeasance in public office was not arguable and therefore dismissed the respondent's application.