FOLAN and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2026] WASAT 41

[2026] WASAT 41 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 (WA) CITATION : FOLAN and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2026] WASAT 41 MEMBER : DR M EVANS-BONNER, SENIOR MEMBER HEARD : 5 MARCH 2026 DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2026 FILE NO/S : EOA 15 of 2025 BETWEEN : BRIAN MARTIN FOLAN Applicant AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent Catchwords: Equal Opportunity - Application for dismissal or strike out - Claim of victimisation for making a complaint under s 67 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) - Whether proceeding frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance - Whether proceeding brought for improper purpose - Collateral motive - Whether an abuse of process - Proceeding dismissed pursuant to s 47(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) Legislation: Criminal Code (WA) Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 67, s 67(1), s 83(4), s 89, s 90(2) -- 1 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 2 Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 24A(1), s 24A(2A)(a) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 47, s 47(1)(a), s 47(1)(b), s 47(1)(c), s 47(2) Result: Proceeding is dismissed pursuant to s 47(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance, brought for an improper purpose and otherwise an abuse of process Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : In Person Respondent : Mr G Scott and Mr A Gibson Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Respondent : State Solicitor's Office Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Aderemi and TAFE International WA [2024] WASAT 141 Ambrus and Churches of Christ Homes & Community Services Incorporated [2006] WASAT 141 Ellis and Director General of the Department of Transport [2011] WASAT 142 Erujin Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2010] WASC 326 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 Kalgoorlie Taxi Car Owners Association Inc and Frank Regan, WASC Library No 980075 Laurent and Commissioner of Police [2009] WASAT 254 Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Khosa [2019] WASAT 143 Li and Edith Cowan University [2012] WASAT 72 McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 WAR 62 Ninan and Valuer General [2016] WASAT 38 Packer v Meagher [1984] 3 NSWLR 486 -- 2 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 3 Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex Parte Gates [2018] WASC 213 Singh and Belmont Counselling Clinic Pty Ltd [2008] WASAT 271 Soelberg (Formerly Van Droffelaar) and Commissioner of Police [2008] WASAT 305 State Electricity Commission of Victoria v Rabel [1998] 1 VR 102 Summerville and Department of Education [2006] WASAT 174 -- 3 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 4 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Overview 1 Mr Folan is the Applicant in a complaint referred to this Tribunal on 12 August 2025 by the Equal Opportunity Commissioner (EO Commissioner) under s 90(2) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) (EO Act). I will refer to this as the Application. 2 Mr Folan's complaint is one of victimisation under s 67 of the EO Act. 3 The Commissioner for Police is the Respondent. 4 In summary, Mr Folan alleges that when making a report to police, a police officer made a notation that Mr Folan was 'Irish' (Irish notation). Mr Folan claims that after he complained about the Irish notation, police victimised him on an ongoing basis. 5 On 25 August 2025, the Respondent's solicitors lodged an interim application in this Tribunal requesting that Mr Folan's Application be dismissed, or struck out in its entirety, pursuant to s 47(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) on the basis that it was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance, or alternatively, that it is being used for an improper purpose (Dismissal Application). 6 There is one specific incident alleged by Mr Folan which he says constitutes victimisation. Mr Folan alleges that police victimised him by becoming involved in a family violence restraining order (FVRO) application on 23 December 2024 which resulted in the granting of an interim FVRO on the same date. He alleges that police filled out the application form on behalf of Mr Folan's former partner, Ms B, at the Magistrates Court which included incorrect information. The incorrect information concerned his access to firearms and that there had been a previous police incident. He says that the inclusion of this information was a deliberate act of falsification of a record by police which he says is a 'crime' and amounts to victimisation. He wants police to be accountable for their 'crimes'. 7 I have decided to dismiss Mr Folan's Application to the Tribunal because it is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and lacking in substance. Further, I have decided that the Application should be dismissed because it is being used for an improper purpose and is otherwise an abuse of -- 4 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 5 process. In summary, that is because Mr Folan is seeking to use the Application to pursue broader concerns about the police, the courts and the justice system. Dismissal or strike out 8 Section 47 of the SAT Act provides that the Tribunal can dismiss or strike out a proceeding in certain circumstances. It provides: (1) This section applies if the Tribunal believes that a proceeding - (a) is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or (b) is being used for an improper purpose; or (c) is otherwise an abuse of process. (2) If this section applies, the Tribunal may order that the proceeding be dismissed or struck out and make any appropriate orders. (3) The Tribunal's powers to act under subsection (2) are exercisable only by a legally qualified member. (4) The Tribunal may act under subsection (2) on the application of a party or on its own initiative. 9 In summary, s 47 of the SAT Act provides that a legally qualified member of the Tribunal may order that a proceeding be dismissed or struck out if the Tribunal believes that a proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance, being used for an improper purpose, or is otherwise an abuse of process. 10 In Aderemi, I gave the following summary of the applicable principles that the Tribunal should be mindful of when considering a dismissal application under s 47:1 (a) The Tribunal does not have formal pleadings because it is not a court of record. The informality of the Tribunal's procedures is set out in s 32(2)(b) of the SAT Act which provides that 'the Tribunal … is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms'. Thus, although the power to dismiss a proceeding at an interlocutory stage is analogous to the power of a court to summarily dismiss a proceeding where the pleadings fail to 1 Aderemi and TAFE International WA [2024] WASAT 141 at [48] citing Ellis and Director General of the Department of Transport [2011] WASAT 142 at [63] and Laurent and Commissioner of Police [2009] WASAT 254 (Laurent). -- 5 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 6 disclose any reasonable cause of action, caution should be exercised in dismissing a proceeding in the Tribunal before the substantive hearing. That is particularly so when a party is self-represented and does not have the benefit of legal representation or training which would enable them to precisely set out their claim in writing. (b) When considering whether a proceeding should be dismissed, the Tribunal should assume that all the factual assertions made by the applicant would be made out at a final hearing, and consider whether the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance from that perspective. If there are any questions of fact to be determined, or if factual issues may be affected by evidence in possession of a party that has not yet been filed, it may not be appropriate to dismiss the proceeding under s 47 of the SAT Act at an interlocutory stage. (c) The decision to dismiss should only be made after very careful consideration, and in circumstances where it is evident that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success in the proceeding. To allow a proceeding to continue when it is evident the applicant has no reasonable prospects of succeeding at a substantive hearing would create a substantial prejudice to the respondent. 11 There is substantial overlap in the meaning of the terms, frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance, improper purpose or abuse of process. Section 47(1)(a) - frivolous and vexatious 12 The terms 'frivolous' and 'vexatious' are often used interchangeably.2 13 A proceeding will be 'frivolous' if it is 'not worthy of serious consideration, is insupportable in law, discloses no cause of action or is groundless', or 'is without substance or is fanciful'. It is also used to describe a claim that is 'so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed', or if the proceeding is 'so obviously unsustainable that it cannot possibly succeed' or 'in which there is no serious question to be tried'.3 14 Similarly, a proceeding 'is vexatious if it has no reasonable prospects of success', or if the proceeding 'is a sham and which cannot possibly succeed'. Further, a proceeding can be vexatious due to the 2 Vaughan J in Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex Parte Gates [2018] WASC 213 (Gates) at [31] - [33], cited by Justice Pritchard in Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Khosa [2019] WASAT 143 (Khosa) at [19]. 3 Gates cited at [31]. -- 6 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 7 motive of the litigant, for example, if proceeding was brought to annoy, embarrass or harass the other party or if the proceeding is brought for a collateral purpose.4 Section 47(1)(a) - misconceived or lacking in substance 15 The term 'misconceived' has been used to describe a 'misunderstanding of a legal principle', and 'lacking in substance' has been used to describe 'an untenable proposition of law or fact'.5 These terms are also sometimes used interchangeably. They have been variously, yet similarly, expressed to describe a proceeding that is 'so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed', a proceeding that is 'manifestly groundless', and a proceeding that discloses a case that is not arguable.6 Allegations that cannot provide a foundation for relief under the EO Act have been held to be misconceived or lacking in substance.7 Section 47(1)(b) - improper purpose 16 The 'improper purpose' is a purpose attributed to the person who has brought the proceeding. It can include 'a purpose which is not proper or is unsuitable or inappropriate'. Whether a proceeding has been brought for an 'improper purpose' must be assessed by reference to the statutory context.8 Section 47(1)(c) - abuse of process 17 A proceeding will be an 'abuse of process' when the proceeding is brought for a purpose which falls outside of the range of purposes for which the court or Tribunal's processes exist.9 That is, '[a] proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal when it is used to exert pressure to effect an object not within the scope of the process, or where it is used for a purpose other than that for which the proceedings are properly designed, or where the plaintiff is seeking a collateral advantage beyond what the law offers'.10 To that extent, there is therefore an overlap with 'improper purpose'. An attempt to re-litigate 4 Gates cited in Khosa at [19]. 5 State Electricity Commission of Victoria v Rabel [1998] 1 VR 102 (Rabel), page 109, cited by Pritchard J in Laurent. 6 Barwick CJ in General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 (General Steel) at 129 cited in Ambrus and Churches of Christ Homes & Community Services Incorporated [2006] WASAT 141 (Ambrus) at [8]. 7 Ambrus at [46]. 8 Khosa at [20] - [21]. 9 McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 WAR 62 (McKechnie) at 74 cited in Ninan and Valuer General [2016] WASAT 38 (Ninan) at [17]. 10 Packer v Meagher [1984] 3 NSWLR 486 at 492 cited in Ninan at [17]. -- 7 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 8 a matter that has been finally determined can also constitute an abuse of process.11 Complaint to the EO Commissioner 18 On 16 May 2025, Mr Folan made a complaint to the EO Commissioner alleging racial discrimination in the provision of services, as well as victimisation, by the Western Australia Police, contrary to the EO Act. 19 The complaint, and documentation relating to the complaint, that was before the EO Commissioner is contained in a Tribunal Report from the EO Commissioner dated 12 August 2025. The following information is from that Tribunal Report. 20 Mr Folan is an Australian citizen who originally immigrated to Australia from Ireland. 21 In his complaint to the EO Commissioner, Mr Folan stated that in January 2023 he was reporting a crime to the police at the Cannington police station relating to a dispute he was having with a motor vehicle dealer, 'Westside Auto'. Mr Folan alleged that the police officer taking down his details wrote that Mr Folan was 'Irish' in his notes (which I have defined above as the Irish notation). This was characterised as a complaint about race discrimination in the provision of services. 22 Mr Folan emailed the Cannington Police station on 5 April 2023 concerning his dispute with Westside Auto. In that email Mr Folan said that when he made the report to police, that the police had 'included a racial reference about me as being IRISH'. He questioned why police needed to record that information.12 23 On 4 September 2023, Mr Folan submitted an online complaint to police which referred to his dispute with Westside Auto and, amongst other things, accused the police of protecting Westside Auto. He further stated, 'Also the racial reference to me as Irish to this day still has not been explained and the treatment I have been subjected to since has shown discrimination.'13 11 Erujin Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2010] WASC 326 at [56]. 12 Tribunal Report, page 14. 13 Tribunal Report, page 10. -- 8 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 9 24 Mr Folan's victimisation claim was that, after he complained about the Irish notation being made, the police victimised him on an ongoing basis. 25 Specifically, in his complaint to the EO Commissioner Mr Folan said that: • before making the complaint he had never had any issues with the police, but that after making the complaint he had 'endless problems with the way [he has] been treated by police' and their handling of 'multiple complaints' by Mr Folan over a three-year period; • '[t]he most direct and obvious link to victimisation having been continuous during the time period since the racial complaint is when Cannington police became involved in a VRO [violence restraining order] application that was granted against me on 23/12/2024'; • Mr Folan alleged that police filled out the application form on behalf of the complainant (Mr Folan's former partner, Ms B) and that they included 'completely false information' that he 'had firearms', was licensed to have firearms and that there had been previous 'incidents' involving him; and • 'the disgraceful level of discrimination I have been subjected to and the detrimental effects on my life have been hugely significant'. 26 No further details of any incidents of victimisation, nor the specifics of any detriment were provided to the EO Commissioner. 27 The EO Commissioner only considered Mr Folan's victimisation complaint, and not his complaint about racial discrimination in the provision of services because some of the conduct was alleged to have occurred more than one year before the date of the complaint on 16 May 2025.14 28 The Commissioner dismissed Mr Folan's complaint under s 89 of the EO Act on 25 June 2025 on the basis that it was lacking in substance. 14 See EO Act, s 83(4). -- 9 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 10 29 When dismissing Mr Folan's complaint, the EO Commissioner stated:15 Under the Act victimisation includes threatening, harassing or punishing a person in any way because they have objected about the discriminatory manner in which they have been treated. It also applies to anyone who has made a complaint, or intends making a complaint, under the Act. The evidence you have provided does not substantiate you were disadvantaged due to you asserting your rights under the Act[.] Referral to this Tribunal 30 Having been advised by the EO Commissioner that he had the option to do so, Mr Folan requested the complaint be referred to the Tribunal under s 90(2) of the EO Act. 31 The EO Commissioner referred Mr Folan's victimisation complaint to the Tribunal on 12 August 2025. 32 The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised in the complaint determined by the Commissioner. When a complaint is referred to the Tribunal under s 90(2) of the EO Act, the complaint that is before the Tribunal 'must be the same complaint as that made by the complainant and determined by the Commissioner [for Equal Opportunity]'.16 33 Consequently, it is only Mr Folan's victimisation complaint that is before the Tribunal. The proceeding 34 It took some time for the matter to progress to a first directions hearing due to several vacate and relist requests being made by Mr Folan. 35 The first directions hearing took place on 5 December 2025, where I made programming directions concerning the Respondent's Dismissal Application. 36 On 13 February 2026, the Respondent filed a document titled, 'Respondent's submissions in support of the respondent's application dated 25 August 2025 to dismiss proceeding pursuant to s 47(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)' (Dismissal Submissions). 15 Letter from EO Commissioner dated 26 June 2025. 16 Summerville and Department of Education [2006] WASAT 174 (Summerville) at [11]. -- 10 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 11 37 The Respondent also filed an affidavit dated 13 February 2026 of Mr Gibson (Affidavit), who is one of the lawyers representing the Respondent. The Affidavit included several annexures including a copy of the FVRO application, a copy of Ms B's affidavit dated 23 December 2024 filed in support of an application for a FVRO, a copy of the cover page of the transcript of the ex-parte proceedings in the Magistrates Court on 23 December 2024 concerning the interim FVRO, and transcripts from the Magistrates Court from 27 December 2024 and 27 February 2025. 38 Although I provided Mr Folan with the opportunity to file any responsive submissions and evidence, he did not do so until the morning of the dismissal hearing on 5 March 2026. Minutes before the commencement of the hearing, Mr Folan filed a four-page typed statement with attachments (Statement). 39 Prior to 5 March 2026, Mr Folan had filed other documentation, but any relationship to the Dismissal Application was not apparent. The documents variously related to complaints against police, restraining order proceedings in the Magistrates Court, a dispute in the District Court with Westside Auto, correspondence with the Magistrates Court and the District Court expressing dissatisfaction with the proceedings in those courts, and complaints alleging a lack of response by the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC). 40 An interlocutory hearing took place on 5 March 2026. 41 On 5 March 2026, I made an order that the decision of the Tribunal with respect to the Dismissal Application was reserved.17 Respondent's dismissal submissions 42 The Respondent submitted that Mr Folan's complaint to the EO Commissioner does not allege, nor provide any evidence to substantiate, a contravention of the EO Act. 43 More specifically, the Respondent says that the allegation of victimisation Mr Folan made in his complaint to the EO Commissioner (that the police helped Ms B fill out the restraining order application 17 After the decision was reserved, on 22 April 2026, Mr Folan filed two bundles of documents comprising six and 17 pages respectively. Again, these documents do not appear to relate to the Dismissal Application but rather to Mr Folan's assertions that police committed a 'crime' by including false information in the FRVO application. They also state that Mr Folan had made a formal report to police about their 'crime' in April 2026. The bundles also included a copy of a complaint about police made to the Corruption and Crime Commission in September 2025. -- 11 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 12 which contained incorrect information) does not meet the definition of 'victimisation' in s 67(1) of the EO Act. 44 The Respondent further says that evidence attached to the Affidavit shows that Ms B made the FVRO application and that it was therefore 'fanciful' to conclude that police officers from the Cannington Police Station filled out the application form, or that there was any connection between his prior dealings with Cannington Police Station and Ms B's application for a FVRO. 45 Further, the Respondent noted that Mr Folan filed voluminous materials in these proceedings which appear to relate to conduct that was not the subject of his Complaint to the EO Commissioner. The Respondent says that these materials suggest the application was brought for the improper purpose of indirectly seeking to challenge findings made by the Magistrates Court or indirectly seeking to compel a person protected by a restraining order against Mr Folan (that is, Ms B) to attend the Tribunal for examination by Mr Folan. 46 More specifically, the Respondent submits that, if Mr Folan is seeking to establish in these proceedings that there was not a proper basis for the FVRO application, it may be inferred that these Tribunal proceedings are for an improper purpose because they are a collateral attack on the Magistrates Court proceedings. Mr Folan's submissions 47 Mr Folan strongly disagrees with the Respondent's Dismissal Application and wants the matter to proceed to a final hearing. So much is evident from correspondence to the Respondent's legal representatives attached to his Statement where he asserts the Dismissal Application is 'farcical' and 'an embarrassment to the legal system'. 48 Mr Folan did not otherwise directly respond to the matters raised in the Respondent's Dismissal Submissions in his Statement. 49 Instead, his Statement repeats some claims that were before the EO Commissioner and some that were not. 50 With respect to the claims that were before the EO Commissioner, Mr Folan re-stated that police deliberately included false information about him in the FVRO application to victimise him. 51 Mr Folan also made allegations of victimisation by police which were not specified in his complaint to the EO Commissioner. -- 12 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 13 These included allegations that Mr Folan had attended the Mirrabooka Police Station on 23 February 2025 to follow up on the police failing to investigate the crime he had previously reported, when he was arrested for an alleged breach of a FVRO. Mr Folan alleges subsequent mistreatment by police including being kept in a holding cell and the police opposing bail. However, these claims were not put before the EO Commissioner and are therefore not before this Tribunal. 52 Mr Folan attached documentation to his Statement which included a copy of the FVRO application with the applicant and person seeking to be protected stated as Ms B; a photograph of a man holding a gun to his head (which Mr Folan confirmed at the 5 March 2026 hearing was a photograph of himself at a gun range when he was on holiday in Thailand many years earlier); and other court documentation relating to the FVRO. 53 At the hearing on 5 March 2026, Mr Folan told me that the 'main document … that needs addressing, that constantly is just ignored, is [the] family violence restraining order application'.18 54 He stated that the application was 'full of falsified information, deliberately placed there by police, because police are the only ones with access to that information, and are the only ones that are allowed to fill out a family violence restraining order application'.19 As referred to above, Mr Folan stated that the false information concerned his access to and possession of firearms and the reference to their having been a police 'incident' in the form. 55 In the FVRO application form the answer 'Yes' was given to the questions, 'Does the respondent have a firearm item or firearms authorisation?' and 'Does the respondent have access to a firearm at work?' There is also a generic heading 'Police Incident' with the answer 'Yes' next to it.20 56 Mr Folan stated that the police were 'guilty' of a 'crime' of 'falsification of a document' because he did not own or have access to a firearm at work and there had been no police incident.21 57 At the hearing on 5 March 2026, I asked Mr Folan about what he said the link was between him making a complaint that police made the Irish notation and the police filling out the restraining order application 18 ts 3, 5 March 2026. 19 ts 6, 5 March 2026. 20 Affidavit, attachment AJG-1. 21 ts 7 - 8, 5 March 2026. -- 13 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 14 containing false information. He said the link was that he had complained to Cannington station police about the Irish notation, and that it was police from the Cannington police station who brought Ms B to court and filled out the FVRO application for her, even though Cannington was not Ms B's local station.22 58 I also asked Mr Folan about the Respondent's submission that he may be pursuing these equal opportunity proceedings to go behind, or challenge decisions that have been made by the Magistrates Court. For example, many of the materials filed by Mr Folan referred to proof of police crimes or proof that the Corruption and Crime Commission does not exist, which appeared to be 'bigger picture things'. Mr Folan agreed with that characterisation but said that it was a matter of equal opportunity because he should be treated the same way as anyone else by the police. He continued to express the view that police did not accurately record details of the crime he reported because he was Irish.23 Victimisation under the EO Act 59 Section 67 of the EO Act makes it unlawful to subject a person to detriment because they have asserted rights under the EO Act.24 60 Section 67 of the EO Act provides: (1) It is unlawful for a person (in this section referred to as the victimiser) to subject, or threaten to subject, another person (in this subsection referred to as the person victimised) to any detriment on the ground that the person victimised - (a) has made, or proposes to make, a complaint under this Act; or (b) has brought, or proposes to bring, proceedings against the victimiser or any other person under this Act; or (c) has furnished, or proposes to furnish, any information, or has produced or proposes to produce, any documents to a person exercising or performing any function under this Act; or 22 ts 29, 5 March 2026. 23 ts 32 - 33, 5 March 2026. 24 Kalgoorlie Taxi Car Owners Association Inc and Frank Regan, WASC Library No 980075, page 9; see also Li and Edith Cowan University [2012] WASAT 72 at [17]. -- 14 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 15 (d) has appeared, or proposes to appear, as a witness before the Tribunal in a proceeding commenced under this Act; or (e) has reasonably asserted, or proposes to assert, any rights of the person victimised or the rights of any other person under this Act; or (f) has made an allegation that a person has done an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II, IIAA, IIA, IIB, III, IV, IVA, IVB or IVC, or on the ground that the victimiser believes that the person victimised has done, or proposes to do, an act or thing referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (f). 61 The burden of proving victimisation lies on the Applicant and the standard is the balance of probabilities.25 62 In Laurent, Deputy President Pritchard J, who subsequently became the President of this Tribunal, explained the principles relevant to establishing a complaint of victimisation. Her Honour stated, at [67]: … in order to establish victimisation under s 67, it must be established that: 1) the person victimised suffered, or was threatened with, a detriment; 2) the detriment alleged must be a disadvantage that is substantial and not trivial; 3) the victimiser subjected the person victimised with the detriment, or threatened to do so; 4) a dominant or substantial reason for the victimiser's conduct was that the person victimised has made or proposes to make a complaint under the EO Act, or has brought or proposes to bring, proceedings against the victimiser under the EO Act (or one of the other grounds for victimisation in s 67(1)). That is, it must be established that: • the complaint, or intended complaint, must be the dominant or substantial reason for doing the act of victimisation; • there must be an intention to cause detriment; and 25 Soelberg (Formerly Van Droffelaar) and Commissioner of Police [2008] WASAT 305 at [83]. -- 15 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 16 • there must be a causal link between the conduct of the victimiser and the detriment suffered. In the absence of facts capable of proving intention to cause the detriment, or facts capable of supporting such an inference, there will be no basis for a contention of victimisation. 63 Establishing a claim of victimisation is not dependent upon a substantive claim of discrimination succeeding. A victimisation claim is a separate claim that must be determined on its merits.26 Is there a basis for dismissal? Victimisation claim not arguable 64 As stated above, Mr Folan made one specific allegation to the EO Commissioner of victimisation by police. This was the allegation that police filled out the FVRO application for Ms B to victimise him for making the complaint about the Irish notation. 65 He also made non-specific allegations of general ongoing victimisation by police to the EO Commissioner. As I explained above, no particulars were provided. In the absence of any particulars of specific incidents of victimisation, I am satisfied that Mr Folan cannot establish victimisation under the EO Act with respect to those general claims. 66 With respect to the specific allegation of victimisation, the Respondent contends that the bare assertion that police officers from the Cannington police station prepared Ms B's application for an FRVO is fanciful. The Respondent refers to the fact that Ms B filed an affidavit in support of the application for a FVRO which was witnessed by a Registrar at the Magistrates Court. The first page of the Court transcript of the ex-parte proceedings at which the interim FVRO was granted states that Ms B appeared in person and does not refer to any police officer appearing on behalf of Ms B, or with her, at the hearing. 67 Mr Folan strongly disagrees. Mr Folan contends that police must have filled out the FVRO application because they were the only ones who would have had access to him having information about firearms. He claims that they are the only ones who can fill out a FVRO application form without a signature. 26 Singh and Belmont Counselling Clinic Pty Ltd [2008] WASAT 271(Singh) at [230]. -- 16 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 17 68 Mr Folan's assertions are misconceptions. The Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) (RO Act) provides that either a person seeking to be protected, or a police officer on behalf of a person seeking to be protected, can make an application for a FVRO.27 It further provides that if a police officer makes the application, it is taken to have been made in the name of the Commissioner for Police.28 When Mr Folan told the Magistrate that there was no signature on the application, the Magistrate responded, 'Well, that's an electronic application'.29 Therefore, the lack of a signature on the application form is not an indication that police completed the application form, or otherwise assisted with the making of the application. There is also nothing unusual or unlawful about police assisting a complainant to apply for a restraining order. It is expressly contemplated in the RO Act that they may do so. 69 I have, however, proceeded on the basis that the factual assertions Mr Folan alleges would be made out at a final hearing. That is, I have proceeded to consider the Dismissal Application on the basis that police completed the FVRO application form for Ms B which contained false information about his access to firearms and reference to a previous police incident by including 'yes' answers to those corresponding questions. 70 I am satisfied that, even if I accept Mr Folan's factual assertions, he cannot possibly succeed in his victimisation claim. That is because he cannot meet the requirements of s 67 of the EO Act for the following reasons. 71 Firstly, there is no basis upon which to infer that incorrect information included by police in a FRVO application form was causative of the grant of the interim FVRO. Interim restraining orders are granted by Magistrates who apply the statutory criteria in the RO Act. As the Magistrate said to Mr Folan on 27 December 2024, 'the police aren't the ones who grant the orders'.30 Filling out a FVRO application that contains incorrect information does not automatically result in the grant of a restraining order. There is an independent legal process to be followed by the Magistrate under the RO Act, including hearing and assessing evidence given under oath or affirmation from the complainant in court, that the police do not have any control over. 27 RO Act, s 24A(1). 28 RO Act, s 24A(2A)(a). 29 Affidavit, attachment AJG-5, Transcript of Magistrates Court proceedings on 27 December 2024, page 3. 30 Affidavit, attachment AJG-5, Transcript of Magistrates Court proceedings on 27 December 2024, page 4. -- 17 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 18 72 Secondly, if the detriment Mr Folan suffered was the grant of an interim FVRO, the detriment was not substantial. If Mr Folan believed that he was disadvantaged by the FVRO, he could have maintained his objection to the interim FVRO being made final. Although he initially objected to the interim FVRO31, at the restraining order hearing he consented to the restraining order being made final. He told the Magistrate that 'I am 100% willing to drop the objection', that he 'had no objection to it whatsoever' and that his 'frustrations were more with the system than the fact that I had been issued a VRO'.32 When the Magistrate asked if Mr Folan consented to the interim FVRO protecting Ms B being made final, Mr Folan answered '[a]bsolutely'. He further stated, 'I am completely consenting to that entirely'.33 Those statements indicate that there was no substantial detriment to Mr Folan associated with the grant of the interim FVRO. If he thought there was or would be, he would have maintained his objection. 73 Accordingly, I am satisfied, and I find, that Mr Folan's victimisation application is tenuous, not arguable and cannot possibly succeed. 74 Further, I am satisfied, and I find, that the Application meets the definition of being frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and lacking in substance in s 47(1)(a) of the SAT Act, and should therefore be dismissed pursuant to s 47(2) of the SAT Act. Improper purpose/abuse of process 75 For reasons that I will now explain, I am also satisfied that Mr Folan has an improper, or in other words a collateral, purpose in bringing these proceedings which falls outside of the EO Act. 76 At the initial directions hearing Mr Folan reiterated that police had falsified a document (the FRVO application) and had committed crimes. He says there is corruption between police and the Magistrates Court and that the CCC will not investigate. He feels aggrieved towards police and has expressed animosity and frustration towards them. 77 Mr Folan has filed numerous bundles of documents and submissions on the eCourts file, despite there being no orders (other than the programming orders for the Dismissal Application hearing) requiring him to do so. 31 Affidavit, attachment AJG-3, Transcript of Magistrates Court proceedings on 27 December 2024, page 9. 32 Affidavit, attachment AJG-5, Transcript of Magistrates Court proceedings on 27 February 2025, page 8. 33 Affidavit, attachment AJG-5, Transcript of Magistrates Court proceedings on 27 February 2025, page 10. -- 18 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 19 78 Mr Folan's documentation does not seek to substantiate his discrimination or victimisation claim and where it does, it conflates discrimination with broader issues of corruption and bias by police and the Courts. 79 His submissions refer to 'proof of police crimes', complaints against police for the way they dealt with his complaint against Westside Auto, complaints against the CCC for failing to investigate police crimes, correspondence expressing dissatisfaction with the Magistrates Court with respect to the FVRO and dissatisfaction with the District Court with respect to his dispute with Westside Auto. There are numerous references to specific sections of the Criminal Code (WA) alleged to have been contravened by police, including with respect to corruption or abuse of public office, fabricating evidence, intimidation and the obstruction of justice. Overall, the documents that Mr Folan has filed relate to a litany of bigger picture concerns with the courts, the police and the justice system.34 80 Mr Folan's general dissatisfaction with the justice system, can be seen in correspondence to the Respondent's legal representatives dated 24 August 2025.35 In that correspondence Mr Folan states that despite having more than 30 hearings in four jurisdictions, he has never been permitted to give evidence in his own defence. He states that there has been a 'deliberate and systemic silencing of [his] right to speak - a denial of natural justice designed to conceal the inadequacies, prejudice, and discrimination inflicted upon me'. He continues to state that:36 For more than one thousand days, the police, the government, and the courts of this State have each had one thousand opportunities to 34 Folio 8 'Bundle of documents - proof of crimes by police and supporting documents 1 - Applicant'; Folio 9 - 'Bundle of documents Restraining orders and communications with police and courts'; Folio 11 - Affidavit of Brian Folan; Folio 12 'Bundle of documents - Brian Folan'; Folio 19 'copy of existing transcript from Magistrates Court with sections highlighted - Applicant' (this is an excerpt from proceedings in the civil division of the Magistrates Court on 10 July 2023); Folio 20 'Bundle of documents - transcript from Magistrates Court with sections highlighted - Applicant' (an excerpt from proceedings in the civil division of the Magistrates Court on 10 July 2023 and in the District Court on 7 March 2024 before Curwood DCJ); Folio 22 'other document letter to district court where the exact same corruptive actions as present were on display - Applicant'; Folio 28 'Expert report of expert report of police reluctance and refusal to investigate misconduct - Applicant' (this is an ABC news article dated 19 September (year unknown) titled, 'Report scathing of police and CCC over failure to respond to complaints of police misconduct'); Folio 31 - 'Other document - Applicant' (this appears to be a print out from an internet source which refers to a Parliamentary Inspector's report and 'serious police misconduct in Western Australia, coupled with systemic failures in accountability and transparency'. 35 Folio 47 - Applicant's Bundle of Documents, page 17. This document is also included in Folio 10 - Bundle of Documents evidence of complaints – Applicant, page 15. 36 Folio 47 - Applicant's Bundle of Documents, page 17. -- 19 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 20 acknowledge and correct their failings, both morally and legally. Instead, at every turn they, have compounded the harm[.] 81 Mr Folan further reiterates that police made 'false and condemning statements' in the FVRO application and that police fabricated allegations of firearms possession. He later lists a 'Schedule of Offences committed by WA Police over the last year'. After this list, he states that:37 The seriousness of this record is undeniable. The systemic failures of the last three years extend beyond WA Police, implicating the wider justice system of this State. 82 He then asks for 'an out-of-court settlement that properly reflects the failures of the State over the last three years'.38 83 In a document titled, 'Formal demand - urgent engagement required' filed on 18 September 2025,39 Mr Folan demands that police immediately engage with him to negotiate an 'out of court settlement' with respect to:40 a series of incidents and actions including crimes involving WA Police, Cannington Police Station in particular, and associated third parties, spanning the last three years and where the police are committing crimes right up until this very week. 84 Mr Folan states that he has not 'been afforded a proper review, investigation or explanation' and demanded that if police did not engage with him by 22 September 2025, he would seek compensation and initiate proceedings at the federal level against the State of Western Australia which would implicate the Perth, Joondalup and Armadale Magistrates Courts, the District Court, this Tribunal and the Equal Opportunity Commission, as well as third parties including Westside Auto who, he stated, had corrupt dealings with the Cannington Police.41 85 As I have discussed above, at the Magistrates Court hearing on 27 February 2025 where Mr Folan consented to the final grant of the FVRO protecting Ms B, Mr Folan expressed that his frustrations were more with the 'system' than with the fact he had been issued with a 37 Folio 47 - Applicant's Bundle of Documents, page 18. 38 Folio 47 - Applicant's Bundle of Documents, page 18. 39 Folio 21 - 'Submissions Letter to Commissioner with Demands - Applicant'. 40 Folio 21 - 'Submissions Letter to Commissioner with Demands - Applicant'. 41 Folio 21 - 'Submissions Letter to Commissioner with Demands - Applicant'. -- 20 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 21 FVRO.42 Mr Folan's lawyer also gave the following subjective opinion to the Magistrate about Mr Folan's situation at that time:43 [W]hat I see is someone who seems to be frustrated, slightly grievance- stricken about what seems to have been a civil incident that occurred three years ago regarding a car. And then there are long passages involving his deep unhappiness with WA Police. There are references to the protected person and the violence restraining order, but if I could be permitted again to make my assessment, I don't believe that is actually uppermost in his concerns or the subject of the conversation. It seems to be that he's very unhappy with WA Police for whatever reason, unhappy generally with the system, and unhappy with some incident that occurred with a car purchase some three years ago. 86 I am satisfied, based on the objective weight of Mr Folan's documents and submissions in this proceeding, that this assessment is an accurate summary. I am satisfied that Mr Folan is pursuing the Application under the EO Act to ventilate his frustrations against police, the courts, and to expose what he believes are crimes and corruption by the police and courts. His frustrations are such that he has told the Tribunal that he will take drastic action if police crimes and misconduct are not recognised by this Tribunal. Again, this further demonstrates that Mr Folan is seeking to prosecute ideological concerns that do not fall within the scope and purpose of the EO Act. 87 Concerns that are not within the scope and purpose of the EO Act cannot be determined by this Tribunal. Grievances with the courts should be pursued by way of appeals, and complaints about the corruption of police or other public officials falls within the purview of the CCC. A perception from Mr Folan that the CCC will not, and have not, assisted him does not mean that the matter can be pursued as an EO complaint. 88 Ultimately, Mr Folan wants police to take responsibility for their 'crimes'. However, that is not something that falls within the EO Act, and it is not something the Tribunal can investigate or make orders about. I am satisfied that this further indicates that the proceeding is being used for an improper purpose and that it is otherwise an abuse of process. 89 I am therefore satisfied, and I find, that the application is being used for an improper purpose, pursuant to s 47(1)(b) of the SAT Act. I am 42 Affidavit, attachment AJG-5, Transcript of Magistrates Court proceedings on 27 February 2025, page 8. 43 Affidavit, attachment AJG-5, Transcript of Magistrates Court proceedings on 27 February 2025, pages 2 - 3. -- 21 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 41 Page 22 further satisfied, and I find, that the proceeding is otherwise an abuse of process pursuant to s 47(1)(c) of the SAT Act, and should therefore be dismissed pursuant to s 47(2) of the SAT Act. Conclusion 90 I have found that the proceeding is: (a) frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and lacking in substance within the meaning of s 47(1)(a) of the SAT Act because Mr Folan's victimisation claims are tenuous, not arguable and cannot succeed; (b) being used for an improper purpose within the meaning of s 47(1)(b) of the SAT Act, because it is being used to pursue allegations of police crimes and corruption, and perceived failures of the justice system and courts; and (c) otherwise an abuse of process within the meaning of s 47(1)(c) of the SAT Act, because it is being used to pursue claims and remedies which fall outside of the orders the Tribunal can make under the EO Act. 91 I am satisfied, and I find, that the proceeding should be dismissed in its entirety under s 47(2) of the SAT Act. Order The Tribunal orders: 1. The proceeding is dismissed in its entirety under s 47(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance, being used for an improper purpose and is otherwise an abuse of process. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. DR M EVANS-BONNER, SENIOR MEMBER 30 APRIL 2026 -- 22 of 22 --