Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1981 |
| Year | 1981 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Australia - New South Wales - Beaudesert principle - Resolutions of local authority - Resolutions void - Whether local authority acting unlawfully - Whether misfeasance in discharge of public duty - Negligence - Duty of care to whom? - Local authority - Resolutions of authority diminishing value of development land - Resolutions invalid - Whether duty to take proper legal advice - Whether misfeasance
In 1972 the plaintiff incurred a bank overdraft in purchasing land which he intended to sell for development. The land lay within a zone where under a local planning scheme buildings of flats over three storeys high were permitted but only with specific planning permission from the council as responsible authority under the scheme. On June 10, 1974, on the advice of its solicitor, the council, purporting to exercise powers to regulate building as council for the area which were additional to those under the planning scheme, passed two resolutions, one under section 308 of the
The plaintiff brought an action against the council alleging that he had suffered loss as the result of (1) the unlawful, intentional and positive acts of the council (a claim under the principle enunciated by the High Court of Australia in Beaudesert Shire Council v. Smith (
On the plaintiff's appeal to the Judicial Committee:—
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that, although on the facts the resolutions if valid would have had the effect of reducing the market value of the plaintiff's property, a void resolution was not in itself capable of constituting an unlawful act sufficient to establish a claim under the Beaudesert principle and that, accordingly, since the council's resolutions were the only acts complained of, the plaintiff's claim under that principle failed (post, pp. 699C–D, 701E–702A).
(2) That, assuming that the council had owed the plaintiff a duty of care, a failure to give him notice of its intention to pass the resolution under section 308 or a fair hearing, although it had been sufficient to render the resolution void, did not in itself constitute a breach of the duty of care sounding in damages; that on the facts, in taking its solicitor's advice as to the passing of the resolutions the council had done all that it could reasonably be expected to do and that, although in regard to the resolution under section 309 that advice had turned out to be wrong and the resolution was ultra vires, such advice on the finely balanced question of law involved given before the judgment of Wootten J. could not amount to negligence on the part of the solicitor giving it, and that, accordingly, the plaintiff's claim in negligence failed in respect of both the resolutions (post, pp. 702C–F, F–703A).
(3) That although the council as a statutory corporation exercising local government functions was a public officer within the scope of the tort of abuse of public office, in the absence of malice or knowledge of the resolutions' invalidity the action of the council in passing them could not amount to a misfeasance sufficient to constitute the tort (post, p. 703B–C).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Beaudesert Shire Council v. Smith (
Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council [
Grand Central Car Park Pty. Ltd. v. Tivoli Freeholders [
Kitano v. Commonwealth of Australia (
Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Abbott v. Sullivan [
Anns v. Merton London Borough Council [
Beaurain v. Scott (
Brayser v. Maclean (
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. Dredge “Willemstad” (
Calvin v. Carr [
Carrington v. Taylor (
Central Canada Potash Co. Ltd. v. Government of Saskatchewan (
Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [
Eaton & Sons Pty. Ltd. v. Warringah Shire Council (
Foster v. Dodd (
Garret v. Taylor (
Henly v. Mayor and Burgesses of Lyme (
Hoffmann-La Roche (F.) & Co. A.G. v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [
Keeble v. Hickeringill (
Keighley's Case (
McGillivray v. Kimber (
Rex v. Whitaker [
Rogers v. Dutt (
Roncarelli v. Duplessis (
Salemi v. Mackellar (
Shrewsbury's (Earl of) Case (
Takaro Properties Ltd. v. Rowling [
Tarleton v. M'Gawley (
Tiernan v. Newcastle City Council (
Whaley v. Laing (
APPEAL (No. 33 of 1980) by Dr. Roger John Massie Dunlop, the plaintiff, from a judgment of Yeldham J. in the Supreme Court of New South Wales delivered on July 28, 1978, dismissing the plaintiff's action against Woollahra Municipal Council for damages in respect of the plaintiff's financial loss alleged to have been incurred as a result of the council's passing two invalid resolutions on June 10, 1974, which adversely affected the plaintiff's land at 8, Wentworth Street, Point Piper. The plaintiff claimed the amount of interest from June 10, 1974, to October 24, 1975, paid to his bank on an overdraft which had financed the purchase of 8, Wentworth Street, overdraft fees and rates and taxes on the property for the same period and architect's fees.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
A. B. Shand Q.C., Brian Rayment (both of the New South Wales Bar) and Roger Toulson for the plaintiff.
Murray Wilcox Q.C. and P. D. McClellan (both of the New South Wales Bar) for the council.
February 23. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DIPLOCK.
The action in which this appeal to Her Majesty in Council is brought by the unsuccessful plaintiff, Dr. Dunlop, is the sequel to a previous action between the self-same parties tried before Wootten J. in which the plaintiff was successful: Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council [
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ng Kim Moi v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seremban, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus
-
Bourgoin S.A. v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
...as a claim for damages against the Minister for misfeasance in public office, a tort which was described by Lord Diplock in Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council, (1982) Appeal Cases 158, 172 E as "well-established". That is not in dispute. The difference between the parties rests only in ......
-
Bennett v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another
...that an intent to injure was an essential ingredient in the tort of public misfeasance: see Dunlop v Woollabra Municipial CouncilELR ((1982) AC 158) and Bourgoin SA v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and FoodELR ((1986) QB 716) and the plaintiff's case as pleaded failed to disclose any cau......
-
Jones v Swansea City Council
...to deal with it, albeit relatively briefly. 69 The plaintiff's cause of action 70Though in Dunlop v. Woollhara Municipal Council [1982] A.C.158 at p.172 Lord Diplock described the tort of misfeasance in public office as "well established", the essential ingredients and limits of the tort h......
-
Misfeasance in public office: a very peculiar tort.
...as a Remedy for Unlawful Administrative Action' (1979) 38 Cambridge Law Journal 323, 343. (120) Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] AC 158, 172 (Lord Diplock for Lords Diplock, Simon, Edmund-Davies, Scarman and (121) [1986] 1 QB 716. (122) Ibid 776 (Oliver LJ). (123) Ibid. Oliver LJ......
-
Constitutional damages, procedural due process and the Maharaj legacy : a comparative review of recent Commonwealth decisions (part 2)
...of Parkhurst Prison, ex parte Hague [1992] 1 AC 58; Rowling vTakaro Properties Ltd [1998] AC 473; Dunlop v Woollah ra Municipal Council [1982] AC 158.[1990] HCA 21, (1990) 170 CLR 1 (HCA).8[1990] HCA 21, (1990) 170 CLR 1 (HCA) 45. See also Park Oh Ho v Minister for Immigration and9Ethnic Af......
-
Bureaucratic bungling, deliberate misconduct and claims for pure economic loss in the tender process
...209 DLR (4th) 564 (SCC).78Swartbooi and Others v Brink and Another (2) 2003 (5) BCLR 502 (CC); Dunlop vWoollahra Municipal Council [1981] 1 All ER 1202 (PC). See Chuks Okpaluba ‘Free speech,participation and deliberation at the municipal council level: Swartbooi v Brink (2)’ (2006)20(1) Spe......
-
Regulating the Conduct of MPs. The British Experience of Combating Corruption
...or for a Member of Parliament to accept a bribe.137Jones v. Swansea C.C. [1990] 1 WLR 1453; Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] AC158, [1981] 1 All ER 1202, P.C.; Three Rivers District Council v. Governorand Company of the Bankof England (No. 3) [1996] 3 All ER 558. See also De Smi......