DICKINSON and CHARUGA

Case [2021] WASAT 122


JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)

CITATION:   DICKINSON and CHARUGA [2021] WASAT 122

MEMBER:   MS N OWEN-CONWAY, MEMBER

HEARD:   DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED          :   13 SEPTEMBER 2021

PUBLISHED           :   13 SEPTEMBER 2021

FILE NO/S:   CC 896 of 2020

BETWEEN:   MARK ANDREW DICKINSON

Applicant

AND

IVAN CHARUGA

First Respondent

GAIL CHARUGA

Second Respondent

THE OWNERS OF NO'S 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 VISTA CLOSE STRATA PLAN 7772

Third Respondent


Catchwords:

Costs of withdrawn Strata TitlesAct 1985 (WA) application - Section 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act2004 (WA) - Discretion to be exercised pursuant to s 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act2004 (WA) - Nature and quantum of claimed costs - Section 87(3) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA)

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 82(7), s 87
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (post 1 May 2020), s 14, s 35, s 35(2), s 209
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (prior to 1 May 2020), s 1(7), s 15, s 32

Result:

Application for costs dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : N/A
First Respondent : N/A
Second Respondent : N/A
Third Respondent : N/A

Solicitors:

Applicant : N/A
First Respondent : N/A
Second Respondent : N/A
Third Respondent : N/A

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

Chew and Director General of the Department of Education and Training [2006] WASAT 248

Pearce & Anor and Germain [2007] WASAT 291(S)

Springmist Pty Ltd and Shire of Augusta-Margaret River [2005] WASAT 143(S)

Western Australia Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

The application for costs

  1. The first respondent's claim for costs comprises the following components:

    1)loss of wages totalling $9,551.52 for 16 days as follows:

    a)four days for 'Directional Hearings';

    b)three days for 'No. 1 Submission';

    c)six days for 'Preparation for Hearing'; and

    d)three days for 'Preparation for Costs';

    calculated at the rate of $596.95 per 'weekday';

    2)punitive damages of $40,000 for 'embarrassment and significant emotional and physical toll this has placed upon us' and 'economic loss and suffering'; and

    3)an unspecified amount by way of punitive damages for loss of enjoyment of life and loss of reputation to be assessed by the Tribunal.

  2. The second respondent's claim for costs comprises the following components:

    1)loss of wages totalling $4,800 for 16 days as follows:

    a)four days for 'Directional Hearings';

    b)three days for 'No. 1 Submission';

    c)six days for 'Preparation for Hearing';

    d)three days for 'Preparation for Costs';

    calculated at $300 per 'weekday';

    2)punitive damages of $40,000 for 'embarrassment and significant emotional and physical toll this process has taken'; and

    3)an unspecified amount by way of punitive damages 'to cover the impact on my health that this whole process has caused' to be assessed by the Tribunal.

  3. Jointly the first and second respondents' claim for costs comprises the following components:

    a)laptop computer - $465.29;

    b)printer and drivers - $105;

    c)Microsoft Office - $159;

    d)stationery - $25; and

    e)travel expenses 'to…

Continue reading DICKINSON and CHARUGA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DICKINSON and CHARUGA [2021] WASAT 122
Case
[2021] WASAT 122
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Dickinson and Charuga [2021] WASAT 122, the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) considered the respondents' application for costs in an abandoned proceeding. The proceeding was brought by the applicant under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (the Act), to seek an order against the respondents to disregard their objection to a proposed subdivision of a strata scheme. The proceeding was dismissed after the applicant applied for leave to withdraw the proceeding. The respondents claimed significant costs and damages, asserting that the proceeding was vexatious and an abuse of process. The Tribunal found that the proceeding was not vexatious and dismissed the respondents' application for costs, finding that the costs claimed were unsubstantiated and unreasonable. The case highlights the importance of the discretion of the Tribunal in deciding applications for costs and the need for the party seeking an order for costs to establish that the other party's conduct in connection with the proceeding has impaired the attainment of the Tribunal's statutory objectives.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.