Twining v Curtis

Twining v Curtis involved an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute centred on the Master's decision to strike out the plaintiff's pleadings under rule 425 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) on the grounds that they failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiff's pleadings alleged misfeasance in public office by the defendant. The case required the court to determine whether the plaintiff's pleadings correctly identified the elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office and whether there were any mistakes of fact.

The court examined whether the plaintiff's pleadings adequately alleged that the defendant occupied a public office with public duties. It found that merely being on the public payroll or holding a named position in a public agency was not sufficient without a public duty. The court further assessed whether the pleadings correctly identified the elements of the tort, including the requirement that the plaintiff be a member of the public or a member of the public to whom the public duty was owed. The court also considered whether the plaintiff had pleaded that the defendant acted beyond their power, and if the defendant's actions were malicious and an exercise of the power associated with their public duties. Additionally, the court scrutinised whether a causal link between the defendant's conduct and the alleged harm was adequately pleaded. The court concluded that the plaintiff's pleadings did not sufficiently meet the requirements for the tort of misfeasance in public office and contained factual errors.

The court found that the Master had erred in determining that certain actions by the defendant, such as extending the plaintiff's probationary period and transferring the plaintiff to another position, were benefits rather than detriments. The court noted that the Master could have found that these actions were not pleaded as causing harm or damage. Consequently, the appeal against the Master's decision was upheld in part. The amended statement of claim was to be struck out, but for the reasons given by the Master as varied by this judgment. The plaintiff, Mr Twining, would require leave to file a further amended statement of claim.