Jennings v Police

This matter concerned an application by the SAPOL Commissioner for summary judgment against Mr Jennings, who had brought a claim alleging negligence by police. The core dispute revolved around whether the police owed Mr Jennings a duty of care beyond their general duties to the public. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the Court were whether Mr Jennings' claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and, consequently, whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed. This required the Court to consider the circumstances under which a duty of care could be imposed on police officers, particularly in relation to the potential for an assumption of responsibility by the police, such as through the provision of police certificates for a fee, independent of their statutory or common law policing responsibilities. The Court also had to determine whether such an order dismissing the proceedings would be interlocutory.

The Court reasoned that summary dismissal is a power that should not be exercised lightly. It acknowledged that while the existence of a duty of care is a question of law, it is fact-dependent. The Court referred to previous decisions, including *State of New South Wales v Spearpoint*, which emphasised the fact-rich nature of duty of care inquiries and the inappropriateness of summary dismissal at early stages if there is a possibility of proving facts that could substantiate the claim. The Court also considered *Fuller-Wilson v State of New South Wales*, which noted that summary dismissal might be warranted to avoid close factual scrutiny of complex public duties, but cautioned against such dismissals. The Court ultimately held that an order dismissing an action because it is frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, or fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action is an interlocutory order.