Background
Clive Palmer and Palmer Leisure Coolum Pty Ltd sued James Shipton, former chairman of ASIC, alleging misfeasance in public office. The complaint stemmed from ASIC’s 2016 decision not to investigate allegations that The President’s Club Limited (which operated a timeshare scheme at a resort in Coolum) had improperly influenced ASIC officers. Palmer alleged Shipton orchestrated or directed a deficient investigation of a 30 September 2019 complaint alleging conflicts of interest and improper influence at ASIC, leading to a perfunctory response in November 2019.
The primary judge struck out portions of Palmer’s pleadings under Federal Court Rules r 16.21, refused leave to amend further, and summarily dismissed both proceedings. Palmer appealed, arguing the primary judge erred on fundamental elements of the tort and wrongfully refused an opportunity to replead.
The Court’s Holding
The Full Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed both appeals. The court held the primary judge correctly determined that Palmer’s proposed amended statements of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for misfeasance in public office. Palmer had made multiple attempts to plead the case but failed to properly articulate essential and non-contentious elements of the tort.
The Full Court applied the discretionary House v The King standard of review rather than the correctness standard, holding that the primary judge’s broad discretionary assessment of whether paragraphs should be struck and whether leave to replead should be granted did not demonstrate error. Even if correctness applied, the primary judge’s decision was substantively correct. Critically, the court found Palmer’s case rested on thin material: a single complaint letter, a response from ASIC counsel, and inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence—insufficient to plead specific conduct by Shipton constituting the tort or his requisite state of mind.
Key Takeaways
- While the outer limits of misfeasance in public office remain unsettled in some respects, parties must plead essential and non-contentious elements properly; mere factual allegations and inferences are insufficient at the pleading stage.
- A court may refuse leave to replead after multiple failed attempts where no utility exists in granting yet another opportunity, supporting summary dismissal.
- Discretionary interlocutory orders striking pleadings and refusing leave to amend are assessed under the House v The King test, not a correctness standard, unless they involve contestable points of law rather than factual insufficiency.
- To establish misfeasance in public office, a plaintiff must plead specific conduct capable of constituting the tort, not merely that an official caused, supervised, or directed the conduct of subordinates, and must establish the official’s state of mind.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces pleading discipline in Australian federal litigation, particularly for complex common law torts against public officials. For practitioners pursuing misfeasance claims, it demonstrates that allegations of impropriety, influence, or conflicts of interest require concrete factual foundations—not inference chains from circumstantial evidence—to survive strike-out. The court’s application of the discretionary standard signals that appellate courts will defer to trial judges’ prudential refusals to permit repeated amendments where the fundamental defects persist.
The case also clarifies that establishing misfeasance requires proof of specific wrongful acts by the defendant-official, not merely the defendant’s administrative oversight or supervisory role. For ASIC and other regulators, the decision confirms that complaints about decision-making processes, even serious ones, do not automatically ground tort liability absent pleading of concrete misconduct and knowledge of wrongdoing by the named official.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.