Legal Research
Cases
Ebeling v The Owners of Chateau Riversdale Strata Plan 14729

Ebeling v The Owners of Chateau Riversdale Strata Plan 14729

Case [2025] WASC 110 9 April 2025

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   EBELING -v- THE OWNERS OF CHATEAU RIVERSDALE STRATA PLAN 14729 [2025] WASC 110
CORAM:   HOWARD J
HEARD:   30 JANUARY AND 14 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   9 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2317 of 2024
BETWEEN:   THOMAS CHARLES EBELING
Applicant
AND
THE OWNERS OF CHATEAU RIVERSDALE STRATA PLAN 14729 (ABN 20 625 170 308)
Respondent

Catchwords:

Administrative law - Judicial review application from decision of the State Administrative Tribunal - Whether the Member erred in making her Orders - Application dismissed

Legislation:

Commonwealth Constitution
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Privacy Act 1998 (Cth)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Mr P A Monaco

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	In person
Respondent	:	GV Lawyers

Cases referred to in decision(s):

Attorney‑General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15, (2018) 265 CLR 304
Centex Australasia Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2017] WASCA 79
Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16; (2022) 276 CLR 216
CSL Australia v Formosa [2009] NSWCA 363; (2009) 261 ALR 441
DPP (WA) v Mansfield [2008] WASCA 5; (2008) 35 WAR 431
Eberstaller v Poulos [2014] NSWCA 211; (2014) 85 NSWLR 688
Elisha v Vision Australia Limited [2024] HCA 50
GS v MS [2019] WASC 255, (2019) 344 FLR 386
Hanssen Pty Ltd v Owners of Strata Plan 58161 [2024] WASCA 87
Huynh v Attorney-General (NSW) [2021] NSWCA 297, (2021) 107 NSWLR 75
Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2005] HCA 50; (2005) 224 CLR 44
LNC Industries v BMW (Australia) Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Mustac v Medical Board of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 128
Paspaley Pearling Company Pty Ltd & Anor and Delegate of the Chief of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Primary Industries & Regional Development & Anor [2023] WASAT 116
Rock v Henderson (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 47

HOWARD J:

By an application filed 6 November 2024 in this Court (Review Application), Mr Ebeling made application for judicial review of a decision made by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). Mr Ebeling sought that the matter be brought on for hearing urgently.
The Review Application was made pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC) O 56 r 2. Mr Ebeling did not seek to appeal pursuant to s 105 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act).

The SAT Application

Mr Ebeling lives in a complex which is strata titled in Rivervale in this State (Property). At the risk of over simplification, the matter before the SAT broadly concerned whether the presence of Mr Ebeling's dog, Buddy, at…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ebeling v The Owners of Chateau Riversdale Strata Plan 14729

Details

AGLC: Ebeling v The Owners of Chateau Riversdale Strata Plan 14729 [2025] WASC 110
Case: [2025] WASC 110
Decision Date: 9 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ebeling v The Owners of Chateau Riversdale Strata Plan 14729 involved a dispute between a strata lot owner and the body corporate of a strata scheme. The applicant, Ebeling, sought judicial review of a decision made by a Member of the State Administrative Tribunal in relation to a dispute about the use of a common property area. The applicant challenged the Member's decision on several grounds, including an alleged failure to properly consider relevant evidence and an error in the application of the law. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the Member of the State Administrative Tribunal had erred in making her Orders and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The applicant argued that the Member had failed to properly consider evidence and had misapplied the law, leading to an unjust outcome. The respondent argued that the Member's decision was correct and should be upheld. The court was required to determine whether there were any errors of law or procedure that warranted setting aside the decision of the Tribunal.

The court found that the Member had not erred in making her Orders. The court held that the Member had properly considered the evidence and applied the law correctly. The court found that the applicant's arguments were not persuasive and that the Member's decision was a fair and reasonable one. The court dismissed the application for judicial review and held that the Orders of the Member should be upheld. The court made no orders as to costs.

This decision serves as a reminder that judicial review is a narrow remedy and will only be granted in cases where there has been a clear error of law or procedure. The court found that the Member had not made any such errors in this case and that the applicant's arguments were not sufficient to warrant setting aside the decision of the Tribunal. The decision also highlights the importance of properly considering evidence and applying the law correctly in administrative decision-making.

Orders