Saffari v State of Western Australia [No 2]

In the matter of Saffari v State of Western Australia [No 2], the parties involved were Saffari as the plaintiff and the State of Western Australia as the defendant. The dispute centred around applications to remove the third and fifth defendants from the proceedings and a request to strike out the pleading in its entirety as it related to the fifth defendant. This case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the third defendant's actions, which were performed for a fee, could be considered voluntary functions exempt from immunity under the Police Act 1990 (WA), and whether the plaintiff's claim could proceed against the second defendant if the third defendant was removed as a party.

The court considered the arguments presented by the plaintiff, who relied on various High Court decisions to support his position. Notably, the plaintiff cited the case of Puntoriero v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation, which emphasised the importance of a jealous interpretation of immunity provisions. The plaintiff argued that the third defendant's actions were not protected by the immunity afforded by section 137(3) of the Police Act because they did not involve a mandated function requiring special protection from liability. Furthermore, the plaintiff questioned whether the Crown could deny responsibility under section 137(5)(a) if the Commissioner of Police was performing a voluntary function for a fee, and whether a claim against the second defendant could proceed if the third defendant was removed as a party.

The court carefully reviewed the submissions and decided that the immunity provision should not be interpreted expansively. It found that the immunity provided by section 137(3) of the Police Act should be narrowly construed and only extend to functions that justify special protection from liability. Given that the third defendant's action of providing a 'Police Certificate' for a fee was not a mandated function, it was held that this action did not fall within the scope of the immunity provided. The court also addressed the plaintiff's questions, concluding that the claim against the second defendant could proceed even if the third defendant was removed as a party.

The final orders of the court were that the application to remove the third defendant from the proceeding was dismissed, and the application to strike out the pleading in its entirety as it related to the fifth defendant was allowed.