DE BEAUMONT and HOFFMAN

Case •

[2025] WASAT 8

•

5 FEBRUARY 2025

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)

CITATION:   DE BEAUMONT and HOFFMAN [2025] WASAT 8

MEMBER:   MR E CADE, MEMBER

HEARD:   DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED          :   5 FEBRUARY 2025

FILE NO/S:   CC 314 of 2024

BETWEEN:   ISABELLE NICOLE MARIE ASTRID DE BEAUMONT

Applicant

AND

KATRIN HOFFMAN

First Respondent

SILVIE MICZKOVA

Second Respondent

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

Third Respondent

CITY OF ALBANY

Fourth Respondent


Catchwords:

Preliminary issue - Survey-strata scheme - By-law cannot be removed or varied without the consent of the Planning Commission - Whether a dispute about scheme by-laws made under a planning (scheme by-laws) condition is a dispute with the Planning Commission or some other planning authority or a dispute that can be the subject of a review under the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), Pt 14

Legislation:

Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), Pt 14
State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 9, r 10
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), (prior to 1 May 2020), s 5D(5), s 5D(6), s 25B(2), s 42(1), s 42(2d)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 3(1), s 6(4), s 18, s 22, s 22(1), s 27, s 27(2)(b), s 27(2)(c), s 27(2)(f), s 27(3), s 46, s 46(b), s 46(j), s 197, s 197(1)(a), s 197(1)(a)(i), s 197(1)(a)(iv), s 197(1)(a)(vi), s 197(2)(d), s 197(3), s 197(3)(a), s 197(4), s 197(5), s 197(5)(a), s 197(5)(c), Pt 3, Pt 13, Sch 5, cl 4(6), cl 14
Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018 (WA)

Result:

Preliminary issue answered

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr JC Yeldon
First Respondent : In Person
Second Respondent : In Person
Third Respondent : Mr V McMullen
Fourth Respondent : Mr T Wenbourne

Solicitors:

Applicant : HFM Legal
First Respondent : N/A
Second Respondent : N/A
Third Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Fourth Respondent : City of Albany

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):


Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

  1. The Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act) was extensively amended by the Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018 (WA) which came into operation on 1 May 2020.

  2. It is relevant in this proceeding that the by-law in issue was registered under the provisions of the ST Act as it was before 1 May 2020, but the proceeding is to be determined in accordance with the ST Act as it is now.[1] Consequently, in order to avoid confusion, the provisions of the ST Act as they were before 1 May 2020 will be referred to in these reasons as the Former ST Act, and the provisions as they are now will be referred to as the ST Act.

    [1] ST Act, Sch 5, cl 14.

Background

  1. Survey-strata plan 42298 was registered on 13 November 2002.  The plan created a survey-strata scheme through subdivision of a single parcel of land situated on Bolitho Road in the picturesque locality of Bornholm in the City of Albany, mid-way between Albany and Denmark. 

  2. The survey-strata scheme consists of three parcels of land being Lot 1 (comprising 2,501m2 on which there is a house), Lot 2 (comprising 137,090m2 on which there is a house) and Lot 3 (comprising a rectangle of common property 13.17 metres wide and 64.93 metres long which under by-law 18(1) is used as a driveway for the exclusive use of Lot 1).

  3. The owner of Lot 1, Isabelle Nicole Marie Astrid De Beaumont, is the applicant in this proceeding.  The owners of Lot 2, Katrin Hoffman and Silvie Miczkova, are the first and second respondents respectively.  The Western Australian Planning Commission (Planning Commission) is the third respondent and the City of Albany is the fourth respondent. 

  4. The following features of the survey-strata scheme are not in dispute and the Tribunal finds that:

    (a)Lot 1 came into existence on 13 November 2002 on the registration of survey-strata plan 42298.  The registration effected the sub­division of a parcel of land that comprised what is now Lots 1, 2 and 3;

    (b)the sub-division was granted conditional approval by the Planning Commission on 6 June 2000. The conditional approval required the proposed survey-strata scheme include by-laws limiting the length of stay of occupants in the house on proposed Lot 1, limiting the length of stay of the strata lot owner in the house on proposed Lot 1 and that amendment or repeal of these by-laws 'cannot be effected without the Planning Commission's agreement'. The Planning Commission granted a Certificate of Approval under s 25B(2) of the Former ST Act on 10 September 2002;

    (c)the registered survey-strata scheme Management Statement includes by-law 17 which, in part, provides that Lot 1 is subject to a restriction that it can 'only be used for short-term holiday accommodation not to exceed 3 months in any 12 months' and the by-law cannot be removed or varied without the consent of the Planning Commission;

    (d)the applicant purchased Lot 1 in 2009 and the first and second respondents' purchased Lot 2 in 2013;

    (e)except for the access provided by Lot 3 to Bolitho Road, Lot 1 is situated entirely within Lot 2; and

    (f)there is a house on Lot 1 in which the applicant resides (although when the applicant commenced to reside there is a fact in dispute).

  5. By-law 17 as it appears in the Management Statement of survey­strata scheme 42298 is:

    17.SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION RESTRICTION ON LOT 1

    (1)The proprietor of a Lot 1 acknowledges and agrees that the lot is subject to a planning restriction and that Lot 1 can only be used for short-term holiday accommodation not to exceed 3 months in any 12 months.  The survey­strata plan contains such an endorsement in accordance with Section 6 of the Act.

    (2)The proprietor of Lot 1 shall not use or permit the lot to be used in such a manner to be inconsistent with the planning restrictions relating to that lot.

    (3)This by-law cannot be removed or varied without the consent of the Western Australian Planning Commission.

  6. On 19 April 2024, the applicant's solicitors wrote to the first and second respondents' solicitors proposing the strata company hold a vote to repeal by-law 17 and should that vote succeed that the strata company apply to seek the approval of the Planning Commission to remove the by-law.[2]

    [2] It is not clear to the Tribunal whether the applicant has ever proposed a resolution to amend or revoke by­law 17 or the making of an application to the Planning Commission to amend or revoke that by-law. 

  7. By way of letter from their solicitors dated 10 May 2024, the first and second respondents rejected this proposal. 

  8. On 17 May 2024, the applicant commenced this proceeding in the Tribunal for the resolution of a scheme dispute pursuant to s 197(4) of the ST Act. The applicant sought orders from the Tribunal that:

    1.Pursuant to section 199(3)(c) of the [ST Act], a declaration that the short-term accommodation by-law restriction on Lot 1 is invalid.

    2.Pursuant to section 200(2) of the [ST Act], an order to remove the short-term accommodation by-law restriction from Strata Plan 42298 Management Statement.

  9. On 7 June 2024, the Tribunal gave the applicant leave to amend her application.  On 10 June 2024 the applicant lodged amended orders sought, seeking the following order:

    1.Pursuant to section 200(2)(n) of the [ST Act], an order that the strata company is taken to have passed an ordinary resolution to make a separate application in the approved form to remove short­term accommodation by-law restriction on Lot 1 pursuant to section 22 of the [ST Act].

  10. On 22 August 2024, the applicant lodged further amended orders sought, and the applicant now seeks the following orders:

    1.Pursuant to section 199(3)(c) of the [ST Act], a declaration by­law 17(1) in Strata Plan 42298 Management Statement is invalid under section 46(b)[3] and/or alternatively section 46(j)[4] of the [ST Act].

    2.Pursuant to section 200(2)(a) of the [ST Act], an order to remove and delete by-law 17(1) from Strata Plan 42298 Management Statement, together with deletion of the heading of by-law 17.

    3.Alternatively, pursuant to section 200(2)(n) of the [ST Act], an order that the strata company is taken to have passed an ordinary resolution to make a separate application in the approved form to remove short-term accommodation by-law restriction on Lot 1 pursuant to section 22 of the [ST Act].

    [3] Section 46(b) of the ST Act: 'Scheme by-laws are invalid as follows — … (b) to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Act or any other written law';

    [4] Section 46(j) of the ST Act: 'Scheme by-laws are invalid as follows — … (j) to the extent that, having regard to the interests of all of the owners of lots in the strata titles scheme in the use and enjoyment of their lots and the common property — (i) they are unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against, 1 or more of the owners of lots; or (ii) they are oppressive or unreasonable.

  11. The applicant's Grounds in Support of Orders Sought lodged on 22 August 2024 stated:[5]

    1.Section 46(b) of the [ST Act] provides that a strata by-law will be invalid and unenforceable to the extent that it is inconsistent with either the [ST Act] or any other written law.  Planning Scheme No. 2 is a written law which is inconsistent with By-Law 17 given short­term holiday accommodation is not permitted in areas zoned 'priority agriculture' on which Survey-Strata Plan No. 42298 is located.  By-Law 17 should therefore be deemed invalid and unenforceable against the Applicant by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

    2.By-Law 17 only applies to Lot 1 owned by the Applicant.  Section 46(j) of the [ST Act] provides that should the use and enjoyment of owners of lots be unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory or oppressive or unreasonable against another lot or lots those by-laws are invalid.

    Should By-Law 17 apply, By­Law 17 is:

    (a)'prejudicial' to the rights of the Applicant given the Applicant is unable to Use and enjoy Lot 1 on a full-time basis whereas the use of Lot 2 can be used and enjoyed on a full-time basis by the 1st and 2nd Respondents;

    (b)'oppressive' or 'unreasonable' given it restricts the rights of occupation or ownership of the Applicant without there being a rational connection between such a restriction and the protection of the interests of the 1st and 2nd Respondents; and

    (c)therefore, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory or oppressive or unreasonable against the Applicant and should therefore be deemed invalid and unenforceable against the Applicant.

    [5] These Grounds are identical with the Grounds lodged by the applicant on 10 June 2024.

  12. On 12 November 2024 the Tribunal made orders the parties are to lodge with the Tribunal and exchange with each other submissions in relation to:

    … the preliminary issue as to whether the validity of the short term accommodation by law restriction in relation to Lot 1 is a scheme dispute for the purposes of s 197 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA)[.]

  13. The Tribunal further ordered that the preliminary issue is to be 'determined on the papers'.

  14. The Tribunal did not give the applicant leave to lodge the further amended orders sought, but no party has taken issue with the form of orders sought, and each party has had the opportunity to engage with this form of orders in the submissions it lodged with the Tribunal pursuant to the orders of 12 November 2024.  Accordingly, the Tribunal will proceed in these reasons to determine the preliminary issue in accordance with the further amended orders sought as lodged by the applicant on 22 August 2024. 

  15. On 20 December 2024 the Tribunal reserved its decision.

The issue in the proceeding

  1. Part 13 of the ST Act provides for resolution by the Tribunal of scheme disputes. Relevant to this proceeding, s 197(1)(a) of the ST Act defines a scheme dispute as:

    …

    (a)a dispute between scheme participants about —

    (i)the scheme documents, including the validity of scheme by-laws; or

    (ii)…; or

    (iii)…; or

    (iv)a resolution or decision of a strata company or the council of a strata company, including its validity; or

    (v)…; or

    (vi)any other matter arising under this Act or the scheme by­laws[.]

  2. Section 197(3), however, relevantly provides that certain disputes are not scheme disputes, including:

    (a)a dispute with the Planning Commission or some other planning authority or a dispute that can be the subject of a review under the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14;

    …

  3. It is not in issue in this proceeding that the applicant and the first and second respondents are in dispute about the validity of by-law 17, about whether to amend or revoke by-law 17 and the making of an application to the Planning Commission to amend or revoke that by-law and about the proper construction of by-law 17.[6]

    [6] Applicant's solicitors letter dated 19 April 2024 and first and second respondents' solicitors letter dated 10 May 2024.

  4. There is also no issue in this proceeding that the applicant and the first and second respondents are members of the strata company and so under s 197(2)(d) each is a scheme participant and that if the dispute between these parties is a scheme dispute, that the applicant can under s 197(4) of the ST Act, make an application to the Tribunal for the resolution of the scheme dispute.

  5. The dispute is therefore a scheme dispute between the applicant and the first and second respondents under either s 197(1)(a)(i), s 197(1)(a)(iv) or s 197(1)(a)(vi) of the ST Act about which the applicant can apply to the Tribunal for resolution, unless it is not a scheme dispute under s 197(3)(a) of the ST Act.

  6. Consequently, the real issue in this proceeding is whether under s 197(3)(a) of the ST Act a dispute under s 46(b) and s 46(j) about the validity of scheme by-laws that cannot be removed or varied without the consent of the Planning Commission is 'a dispute with the Planning Commission or some other planning authority or a dispute that can be the subject of a review under the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14'.

  7. If this question is answered in the negative, then the dispute in this proceeding is a scheme dispute.  Conversely, if the question is answered in the affirmative then the dispute is not a scheme dispute.

The parties' contentions

The applicant's submissions

  1. The applicant in her Outline of Submissions submits:

    …

    2.The applicant says her application is not included in the negative definition in section 197(3)(a) of the [ST Act]. Her dispute is not a dispute that can be the subject of a review of a planning scheme under the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14 (PDA).  Her dispute is about the validity of the by-laws.  Her dispute is not a review of a planning scheme in the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 236 of the PDA.

    3.The applicant says the key to construction is to focus on what is a scheme dispute in section 197(1)(a)(i) [ST Act], and 197(5)(a) [ST Act]. This is the dispute between the applicant and the second respondents: section 197(2)(e) [ST Act].

    4.The applicant submits the words in sections 197(5)(a) and 197(5)(c) [ST Act] militate against the WAPC's submission. Both sub-sections begin with the word "However", which is significant as an aid to construction. In other words, the law provides a matter referred to in section 197(5) (a) (c) [ST Act] will always be a scheme dispute for the purposes of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

    5.As an occupier of a lot in the strata titles scheme the applicant is entitled to apply for resolution of the dispute about the scheme by-laws.  The WAPC's submission that her application is improperly framed must be rejected.

The third respondent's submissions

  1. The third respondent in its Response contends:

    33.The [ST Act] expressly excludes matters that properly arise in relation to a planning authority's discretionary decision-making from the scope of a "scheme dispute": [ST Act] s 197 (3)(a).

    34.The application before the Tribunal is wrongly framed as a "scheme dispute", in the Tribunal's original jurisdiction, when it raises issues that could be, if the strata company consented to the making of it, the subject of a planning application, the outcome of which is unknown, but which, if it were then the subject of an application to the Tribunal, arises in its review jurisdiction.

    35.In purporting to raise issues relating to a planning authority's decision-making under the guise of a scheme dispute, the current application is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine …

    36.If amendment or deletion of by-law no. 17 is sought, then an application to the WAPC concerning the by-law would be required.  An application, and any application for review, would have to be made by or with the agreement of the strata company, given the powers of the strata company concerning by-laws: [ST Act] s 44.

    37.The strata company is not compelled to agree to the making of such an application for the amendment, or for review of an application to amend the strata scheme, but would have to give it proper consideration.

    38.A dispute as to whether such an application could be made, or any application for review, could be a "scheme dispute", concerning the reasonableness of the strata company's decision: [ST Act] s 119(2)(b)[.]

The first and second respondents' submissions and the fourth respondent's submissions

  1. While the first and second respondents' submissions and the fourth respondent's submissions engage with the applicant's contention that by­law 17 is invalid under the ST Act, they do not engage with the preliminary issue as to whether this dispute is or is not 'a scheme dispute' for the purposes of s 197 of the ST Act. Consequently, their submissions will not be considered further by the Tribunal in these reasons.

Legislative framework at time of registration of the survey-strata plan

  1. Under s 5D(5) of the Former ST Act '[u]pon registration of a management statement, the by-laws set out in the statement, and any amendments and repeals, have effect for the purposes of section 42'. Under s 5D(6) of the Former ST Act '[b]y-laws set out in a management statement may be amended in accordance with section 42 or as otherwise provided by this Act'.

  2. Under s 42(1) of the Former ST Act '[a] strata company may make by­laws, not inconsistent with this Act, for — (a) its corporate affairs; and (b) any matter specified in Schedule 2A; and (c) other matters relating to the management, control, use and enjoyment of the lots and any common property'.

  3. Under s 42(2d) of the Former ST Act '[a] by-law made by a strata company at the request of a public authority, or a local government may be expressed to require the consent of that authority or local government to an amendment or repeal of the by-law, and any such restriction has effect according to its tenor'.

  4. As set out above, the sub-division which created this survey-strata scheme 42298 was granted conditional approval by the Planning Commission on 6 June 2000, with condition 1 of the conditional approval requiring the proposed survey-strata scheme includes by-laws limiting the length of stay of occupants in the house on proposed Lot 1, limiting the length of stay of the strata lot owner in the house on proposed Lot 1 and that amendment or repeal of these by-laws 'cannot be effected without the Planning Commission's agreement'. The Planning Commission granted a Certificate of Approval under s 25B(2) of the Former ST Act on 10 September 2002.

  5. On 13 November 2002 survey-strata scheme 42298 was registered.

  6. By letter dated 15 November 2002 the City of Albany confirmed that the conditions of the Planning Commission had been met and it endorsed the scheme plan to that effect.

Current legislative framework

  1. Under Sch 5, cl 4(6) of the ST Act '[b]y-laws in force immediately before commencement day that can only be amended or repealed with the consent or approval of the Planning Commission or local government are taken to have been made subject to a planning (scheme by-laws) condition'.[7]

    [7] Commencement day of the current ST Act is 1 May 2020.

  2. Section 3(1) of the ST Act defines a 'planning (scheme by-laws) condition' to mean:

    a condition of a planning approval requiring a strata titles scheme to have specified scheme by-laws, which may include by-laws that provide that they cannot be amended or repealed without the approval of the Planning Commission, each local government in whose district the parcel is situated or some other specified body (such as a government agency or a utility service provider);

  3. Pursuant to the definition of governance by-laws under s 3(1) of the ST Act, a scheme by-law made under a planning (scheme by­laws) condition is a governance by-law.

  4. Schedule 5, cl 14 of the ST Act deals with scheme disputes that involve an event that occurred before commencement day. Clause 14 is:

    14.Scheme disputes

    (1)A scheme dispute may involve an event that occurred, or a matter that arose, before commencement day.

    (2)In determining a scheme dispute, the Tribunal may apply the objectives set out in section 119 as if that section had been in force when the event occurred or the matter arose.

  5. The effect of Sch 5 is that on 1 May 2020 by-law 17 became a planning (scheme by-laws) condition governance by-law under the ST Act, and whether the applicant's dispute as to the validity of the by­law is a scheme dispute is to be determined in accordance with s 197 of the ST Act.

  6. Under s 18 of the ST Act '[t]he conditions of a planning approval applying to a strata titles scheme may include a planning (scheme by­laws) condition'.

  7. Under s 22(1) of the ST Act, an application to amend or repeal scheme by-laws which require the approval of the Planning Commission 'can be made under this section'.

Consideration

  1. Section 197(3)(a) of the ST Act encompasses two distinct types of disputes. These are, firstly, a dispute by a scheme participant 'with the Planning Commission or some other planning authority' and, secondly, a dispute by a scheme participant 'that can be the subject of a review under the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14'.

  2. The Tribunal finds that the first type of dispute does not fall within s 197(3)(a) of the ST Act. This is because the opportunity for a scheme participant to make an application to the Planning Commission under s 22(1) of the ST Act does not place the scheme participant and the Planning Commission into dispute, even though there may, eventually, be a dispute between the parties if such an application is made.

  3. The Tribunal finds, however, that the second type of dispute does fall within s 197(3)(a) of the ST Act. This is because the second type of dispute requires (in distinction to the first type of dispute) no more than that the dispute 'can be the subject of a review under the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14' (emphasis added).

  4. The Tribunal is therefore now required to determine whether the opportunity given to a scheme participant to make an application under s 22(1) of the ST Act constitutes a dispute under s 197(3)(a) of the ST Act 'with the Planning Commission or some other planning authority or a dispute that can be the subject of a review under the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14'.

  5. Section 22 of the ST Act is within Pt 3 of the ST Act. Also within Pt 3 of the ST Act is s 27, the relevant parts of which are:

    27.Review of Planning Commission decision

    (1)The Planning Commission must give written notice of its decision on an application made to it under this Part to the applicant.

    (2)A person who has made an application under this Part may apply to the Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Planning Commission —

    (a)to refuse to approve an application under section 15; or

    (b)to impose a condition of an approval under section 15; or

    (c)to refuse to vary or revoke a condition of an approval under section 15; or

    (d)…; or

    (e)…;

    (f)to refuse to approve an amendment or repeal of scheme by-laws under section 22.

    (3)The Tribunal has jurisdiction to carry out the review in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14.

    …

  6. The applicant's Grounds makes clear the applicant contends that the issue of the validity of a planning (scheme by-laws) condition is to be determined by the Tribunal within its original jurisdiction in accordance with the ST Act.

  7. However, s 6(4) of the ST Act provides that the ST Act 'must be read together with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Transfer of Land Act 1893 to gain a proper understanding of the legislative framework for the subdivision of land by a strata titles scheme' and s 18 of the ST Act clearly provides that conditions of planning approval 'may include a planning (scheme by-laws) condition'.

  8. The effect of those sections along with s 27(2)(b) and s 27(2)(c) of the ST Act is that a challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission to require a planning (scheme by-laws) condition as a condition of a sub­division is within the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is to be carried out by the Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14.

  9. That is, the Tribunal finds that the dispute in this proceeding is between a scheme participant and the Planning Commission as to the validity of a condition of sub-division requiring a planning (scheme by­laws) condition to be included in a strata plan which can, pursuant to s 27 of the ST Act, be the subject of a review under the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14.

  10. This would be the case even if the time limit for an application to the Tribunal under its review jurisdiction has expired, as the Tribunal may extend any time fixed under the SAT Act or an enabling Act for the commencement of a proceeding.[8]

    [8] State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 9 and r 10.

  11. The effect of s 27(2)(f) and s 27(3) of the ST Act is also that a decision of the Planning Commission to refuse to approve an application by a scheme participant under s 22 of the ST Act to amend or repeal a scheme by-law which requires the approval of the Planning Commission is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is to be carried out by the Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. That is, the Tribunal finds that a dispute between scheme participants and the Planning Commission whether to remove or vary by­law 17 can, pursuant to s 27 of the ST Act, be the subject of a review by the Tribunal under the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14.

  12. This has the consequence that the Tribunal must find that under s 197(3)(a) of the ST Act a dispute between a scheme participant and the Planning Commission about the validity of a condition of approval about by-law 17 and a dispute between scheme participants and the Planning Commission about removing or varying by-law 17 are not scheme disputes under s 197 of the ST Act.

  13. For completeness, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant's submission that the 'words in sections 197(5)(a) and 197(5)(c)' of the ST Act should be construed to mean that the matters in 'section 197(5) (a) - (c) [of the ST Act] will always be a scheme dispute for the purposes of the Tribunal's jurisdiction'. On this point, the Tribunal accepts the submission of the third respondent that properly constructed 's 197(5) is directed at further narrowing the scope of a scheme dispute as it relates to scheme "occupiers" (as defined)', and that it has no greater effect than this.

Conclusion

  1. The preliminary issue is answered by the Tribunal finding that the validity of the short-term accommodation by-law restriction in relation to Lot 1 (by-law 17) is not a scheme dispute for the purposes of s 197 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).

Orders

The Tribunal orders:

1.The preliminary issue is answered by the Tribunal finding that the validity of the short-term accommodation by-law restriction in relation to Lot 1 (by-law 17) is not a scheme dispute for the purposes of s 197 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).

2.The parties are to attend a hearing of 2 hours duration to commence at a time and date to be determined by the Tribunal at 565 Hay Street in Perth, to make submissions in relation to the precise terms of the orders to be made consequent on the determination of the preliminary question.

3.The parties have leave to attend the hearing in order 2 by audio visual link.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

MR E Cade, MEMBER

5 FEBRUARY 2025


Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

5