Engwirda v The Owners of Queens Riverside Strata Plan 55728

In the case of Engwirda v The Owners of Queens Riverside Strata Plan 55728, the appellant, Engwirda, appealed against orders made by the State Administrative Tribunal which required her to provide an undertaking as a condition for inspecting documents held by the respondent, the Owners of Queens Riverside Strata Plan 55728. The appeal focused on the legality of the Tribunal's imposition of the undertaking, contending that it restricted her use of the inspected documents in a manner not authorised by the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).

The central legal issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to impose an undertaking as a condition for inspection and if such a condition was reasonable. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Tribunal erred in law by imposing the requirement in a manner not authorised by the Act. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's orders effectively precluded her from using the information obtained from the inspection for the authorised purposes she sought inspection. The respondent contended that the Tribunal had a discretion to impose such conditions and that the orders were reasonable.

The court held that it is a general principle that the exercise of a statutory discretion must be reasonable. The Tribunal's discretion under section 90 of the Act could not reasonably be exercised to limit the appellant's use of the inspected documents in the manner provided for by the Tribunal's orders. The court found that the Tribunal's imposition of the undertaking was unreasonable as there was no basis to exclude the implied limitation on the exercise of the discretion. Additionally, the purposes for which the appellant sought inspection were not outside any arguable limit on the permissible use of the information, and there was nothing to suggest she intended to use the information for any improper purpose. The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in law in imposing the requirement in a manner not authorised by the Act. As a result, the orders requiring the appellant to give the undertaking should be set aside.