The State of Western Australia v Cunningham [No 3]

The State of Western Australia was sued by Mr Cunningham in the Supreme Court of Western Australia for various torts committed by police officers, including battery, misfeasance in public office, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The court was required to determine whether the damages awarded to Mr Cunningham should have been apportioned and whether the costs of the proceedings should have been apportioned between the parties. The central issue was whether the State of Western Australia, through its police officers, was liable for the torts committed against Mr Cunningham and, if so, whether the damages and costs should be apportioned between the State and the individual officers.

The court considered whether the police officers acted within the scope of their employment when committing the torts against Mr Cunningham. The court found that the police officers had acted outside the scope of their employment in committing the torts and that the State of Western Australia was therefore not liable for those torts. The court held that the individual officers were liable for their actions and that the State of Western Australia was not liable for the torts committed by the officers. The court found that the individual officers had acted maliciously in committing the torts against Mr Cunningham and that the State of Western Australia was not liable for the malicious conduct of its officers. The court held that the individual officers were liable for the damages awarded to Mr Cunningham and that the State of Western Australia was not liable for the damages. The court also held that the individual officers were liable for the costs of the proceedings and that the State of Western Australia was not liable for the costs.

The court found that the individual officers were liable for the damages awarded to Mr Cunningham and that the State of Western Australia was not liable for the damages. The court held that the individual officers were liable for the costs of the proceedings and that the State of Western Australia was not liable for the costs. The court further held that the damages and costs should not have been apportioned between the parties, as the individual officers were solely responsible for their actions. The court dismissed the claim against the State of Western Australia and ordered the individual officers to pay the damages and costs awarded to Mr Cunningham.