Snell v Sanders [2000] NFSC 5

SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND Snell v Sanders [2000] NFSC 5

TORT – misfeasance in public office – whether requisite intent established. DAMAGES – exemplary damages – whether pre-judgment interest should be allowed. Sanders v Snell (1998) 196 CLR 329 cons. Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307 cons. Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England [2000] 2 WLR 1220 cons. LISLE DENIS SNELL v WILLIAM WINTON SANDERS SC 3 of 1993

CORAM: BEAUMONT CJ DATE: 24 NOVEMBER 2000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ) ) SC 3 of 1993 NORFOLK ISLAND ) BETWEEN LISLE DENIS SNELL Plaintiff AND WILLIAM WINTON SANDERS Defendant

ORDERS

CORAM: BEAUMONT CJ DATE: 24 NOVEMBER 2000 THE COURT ORDERS: 1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $83,000, including interest up to the date of judgment. 2. Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the whole of the proceedings in this Court, including the costs of the first trial.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ) ) SC 3 of 1993 NORFOLK ISLAND ) BETWEEN LISLE DENIS SNELL Plaintiff AND WILLIAM WINTON SANDERS Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (ON RETRIAL OF CLAIM OF MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE)

CORAM: BEAUMONT CJ DATE: ** 2000

INTRODUCTION

1. The plaintiff, Lisle Denis Snell, sued the defendant, William Winton Sanders, in this Court for damages, including exemplary damages on two claims: one a claim in tort of intentional interference with a contractual relationship; the other a claim in tort of misfeasance in public office. The first claim was of intentional interference with the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and his former employer, the Norfolk Island Government Tourist Bureau ("the Bureau"). The second claim was of misfeasance by the defendant in his public office of Executive Member (Minister) of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, in which capacity he administered the Norfolk Island Government Tourist Bureau Act 1980 ("the Act"). The defendant denied both claims. (There was also a third party claim which is no longer an issue here.) For reasons given in my reasons for judgment dated 19 April 1996, I found that the first cause of action had been established, and awarded the plaintiff damages, including exemplary damages, in the sum of $17,000.