A public officer commits the common law offence of misconduct in a public office if, acting as such, he wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification.

Corporate Crime analysis: Michelle Heeley KC, Head of No 5 Chambers, considers the long-standing problems with the common law offence of misconduct in public office and explores how the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2025 seeks to reform and rectify the issues by introducing clearly defined statutory offences, imposing duties of candour and accountability, and providing more proportionate sentencing.

Offence of misconduct in the course of winding up Under section 208(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), a criminal offence may be committed in various circumstances during the course of a company’s liquidation. The offences created by IA 1986, s 208 criminalise any attempt to evade the obligations on company officers to deal transparently and honestly with the liquidator. An offence is committed where a past or present officer of the company: • does not to the best of their knowledge and belief fully and truly disclose to the liquidator all the company's property as well as how and to whom, and for what consideration and when, the company disposed of any part of that property unless such part has been disposed of in the ordinary course of business • does not deliver up to the liquidator (or as they direct) all such parts of the company's property as is in their custody or under their control and which they are required by law to deliver up

This Flowchart sets out the stages of a disciplinary procedure to deal with an issue of employee misconduct, from investigating the allegation(s), to conducting a disciplinary hearing and deciding on appropriate disciplinary action, and managing an appeal process. Click below to view or print the full-size PDF version: Note 1—dealing with an allegation of misconduct When considering whether the issue is one involving potential misconduct, it may be necessary also to review the employee’s contract, the employer’s staff handbook and any other policies or procedures that may be relevant in addition to the disciplinary/dismissal procedure, eg equality/equal opportunities policy or expenses policy. It is also worth remembering that a situation that might, at first glance, appear to be a case of misconduct, could turn out to be a performance or capability problem. See Practice Note: Managing conduct—Dealing with conduct issues. Where a conduct issue arises, the first stage in managing that issue is to investigate the problem, promptly and without unreasonable delay, to establish the facts of the case. Note 2—using mediation In suitable

Misconduct, usually on the part of an officer of a company. For example see Insolvency Act 1986, s 12.

This Practice Note considers paragraph 75 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) which allows the conduct of an administrator of a company to be examined to investigate and potentially establish liability for misfeasance. For key cases and associated relevant content, see Practice Note: Misfeasance claims against administrators under paragraph 75 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986—key cases. Unlike a misfeasance claim under IA 1986, s 212, an application under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 75 is not dependant on the company being in liquidation. Whose conduct can be examined? The court may examine the conduct of a person who: • is or purports to be an administrator of a company, or • has been or has purported to be an administrator of a company The inclusion of a ‘purported’ administrator covers an application for examination where a person holds themselves out to be validly appointed when that is not actually the position. The right to examination will

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content in relation to misfeasance claims against administrators under paragraph 75 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The cases are divided by topic area and include: • the applicant • whose conduct can be examined • nature of an administrator's duties • allegations to be made • permission • relief • costs For further reading on this topic, see Practice Note: Misfeasance claims against administrators under paragraph 75 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. The applicant Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Uralkali v Rowley [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) 15 December 2020 An unsuccessful bidder in an administration sale process (who is not a contributory or creditor) falls outside the scope of IA 1986, Sch B1, para 75. News Analysis: An office-holder is highly unlikely to owe a duty of care to a prospective buyer of an insolvent estate’s assets (Uralkali v

What is misfeasance? A claim under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) operates where a person caught by the section has: • misapplied, retained or become accountable for any money or other property of the company • breached any fiduciary or other duty owed in relation to the company, or • otherwise been guilty of misfeasance Claims commenced under IA 1986, s 212 are procedural claims against individuals caught by that section. IA 1986, s 212 itself (unlike wrongful trading and fraudulent trading claims brought under IA 1986, ss 213–214) does not create a separate cause of action but merely provides an alternative IA 1986 procedure for existing causes of action against certain individuals. A liquidator may proceed under IA 1986, s 212 in addition to seeking relief on another basis. When examining a director’s conduct the general duties of directors set out in sections 171–177 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) should be considered which codifies certain common law and equitable duties of

This Flowchart sets out the conditions that must be satisfied to establish a misfeasance claim. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act

This Practice Note deals with the tort of misfeasance and the ingredients of the tort, where the tortfeasor is a public officer, the requirement for the tortfeasor to have exercised power as a public officer at the time of the relevant action and to have acted (or failed to act) in bad faith, the requirement for the public officer to have known at the time that the act would probably harm somebody, causation, the requirement for damage and vicarious liability. The tort of misfeasance Misfeasance in public office is a tort that is rarely invoked in personal injury claims. It is only available against public authorities. In general terms, the tort is invoked where a public officer has exercised (or failed to exercise) their power as a public officer in bad faith, knowing that the act in question would probably cause harm. The tort is therefore potentially appropriate where there has been particularly egregious behaviour on the part of a public officer. The rationale behind the tort is that our society

Mishcon De Reya LLP has agreed to pay a fine of £232,500 in addition to £50,000 for costs following a Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) investigation on its conduct.

Financial Services analysis: Mishcon de Reya‘s Financial Services and White Collar Crime & Investigations teams review recent developments in FCA enforcement, including insider dealing outcomes, the FCA’s first prosecution for a data breach and the Upper Tribunal’s direction regarding FCA powers on the collateral use of documents disclosed in Tribunal proceedings. The edition also examines the £44m AML fine imposed on Nationwide, the emerging UK cryptoassets regulatory framework and the FCA’s final handbook guidance on non-financial misconduct.