LE and CITY OF WANNEROO - [2010] WASAT 154

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)

CITATION: LE and CITY OF WANNEROO [2010] WASAT 154

MEMBER: MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 19 OCTOBER 2010

FILE NO/S: DR 163 of 2010

BETWEEN: DAN LE
THANGS FAMILY CO PTY LTD
Applicants
AND
CITY OF WANNEROO
Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning - Development - Preliminary issue - Classification - Caretaker's dwelling - Grouped dwellings - Whether dwelling is 'caretaker's dwelling' Whether proposed development is capable of approval

Legislation:

City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.9.2, cl 1.9.3, cl 3.2.1, cl 3.2.2, cl 3.2.3, cl 3.7.3(a), cl 3.17, cl 3.17.3, cl 3.17.3(a), cl 4.1, cl 4.2.1, cl 6.7, Sch 1
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)

Result:

The proper classification of the proposed development is grouped dwellings under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2
The proposed development is not capable of approval under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2
Development application refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants: Mr MJ Hardy
Respondent: Mr CA Slarke

Solicitors:

Applicants: Hardy Bowen
Respondent: McLeods

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

Pearce and City of Wanneroo [2010] WASAT 77

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

Members of an extended family operate a market garden located on three allotments in Carabooda. Twelve members of the family working in the business also reside in five dwellings on the property. A development application was made in order to enable the construction of two additional dwellings on one of the allotments to accommodate other family members who work in the business. The allotment in question already contains a dwelling.
The City of Wanneroo refused to grant development approval because a provision of the local planning scheme only permits the Council to approve the development of 'a maximum of two grouped dwellings on a lot' in the zone. The applicants sought review of this decision by the Tribunal and the parties identified the following preliminary issues for determination:
1)What is the proper land use classification of the proposed development under the scheme?
2)Is the proposed development capable of approval under the scheme?
The Tribunal determined that the proper land use classification of the development under the scheme is grouped dwellings and that the development is not capable of approval as it would result in three grouped dwellings on the lot. The Tribunal rejected the applicants' contention that the existing dwelling would be classified as a caretaker's dwelling, because it would not be used as a dwelling by 'a person having the care' (emphasis added) of the facility, as required by the definition of 'caretaker's dwelling'. The existing dwelling would not be a 'caretaker's dwelling', because there are a considerable number of family members who collectively care for the facility, the care is, in any case, an incidental aspect of their work, and two adjoining dwellings on the lot would also be occupied by family members who work in (and collectively care for) the facility.
The Tribunal therefore refused to grant approval for the proposed development.

Introduction

On 8 December 2009, Thangs Family Co Pty Ltd (Thangs) applied to the City of Wanneroo (City or Council) for development approval under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2 or Scheme) and the Metropolitan Region Scheme for development described on the application form as '2 dwellings' at No 94 Safari Place, Carabooda, which was then on Lot 6 on Diagram 41471 (Lot 6) and is now Lot 106 on Deposited Plan 65092 (Lot 106). Thangs is the registered proprietor of Lot 106. Dan Van Le, Michael Le, Canh Minh Le and Thi Nga Huynh are the registered proprietors of Lot 107 on Deposited Plan 65092 (Lot 107), formerly Lot 7 on Diagram 41471 (Lot 7), which adjoins Lot 106 to the north. In accordance with a subdivision approval granted by the Western Australian Planning Commission (Commission), the common boundary between Lot 6 and Lot 7 was adjusted on 17 May 2010 to create the present Lot 106 and Lot 107, respectively. In particular, a part of Lot 6 which comprises a dwelling was excised from that allotment and incorporated into what is now Lot 107.
Lot 6 has a roughly rectangular shape and an area of 20.4489 hectares and Lot 7 has a roughly triangular shape and an area of 20.0728 hectares. Thangs and Mr Dan Le use Lot 106, Lot 107 and Lot 32 Safari Place, Carabooda (Lot 32), which adjoins Lot 107 to the northwest, for market gardening. Market gardening falls within the use class 'Intensive Agriculture' under DPS 2.
There is an existing dwelling addressing Safari Place in the northwestern part of Lot 106. The development application proposes the construction of two additional dwellings immediately to the south of the existing dwelling, also addressing Safari Place and with a similar setback from the road frontage as the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling and the two proposed dwellings would occupy the northern half of the road frontage of Lot 106.
The Council classified the development proposed in the development application as falling within the use class grouped dwellings under DPS 2. On 4 May 2010, the Council refused to grant development approval:
for the construction of two grouped dwellings in addition to the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 106 (94) Safari Place, Carabooda, as the construction of three dwellings on the subject lot is inconsistent with the provisions of [DPS 2].
On 2 June 2010, Thangs and Mr Dan Le sought review of the Council's decision by the Tribunal under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA). At the directions hearing held on 18 June 2010, the parties identified the following preliminary issues for determination by the Tribunal:
1)What is the proper land use classification of the proposed development under DPS 2?
2)Is the proposed development capable of approval under DPS 2?

Background

Two grouped dwellings were approved by the City on Lot 7 at some time prior to 1999. Those dwellings have been constructed. In 1999, development approval for a third grouped dwelling on Lot 7 was refused. In 2003, the Council granted development approval for the construction of two grouped dwellings on Lot 6. Those dwellings have also been constructed. In 2005, the Council refused to grant approval to construct a third dwelling on Lot 6.
In October 2006, Drescher and Associates sought 'in principle' approval on behalf of the Le family for:
(a)the excision of 3,000 square metres (containing one of the existing grouped dwellings) from Lot 6, to be amalgamated with Lot 7;
(b)subject to subdivision (amalgamation) approval, the approval of the preexisting grouped dwelling excised from Lot 6 as a caretaker's dwelling on Lot 7;
(c)the approval of the remaining preexisting dwelling on Lot 6 as a caretaker's dwelling;
(d)two new grouped dwellings on Lot 6; and
(e)a caretaker's dwelling on Lot 32.
In January 2007, the City declined to grant the 'in principle' approval sought, on the basis that it did not have the power to approve the proposal.
In July 2007, Drescher and Associates again sought 'in principle' approval from the City for:
(a)the excision of 3,000 square metres (containing one of the existing grouped dwellings) from Lot 6, to be amalgamated with Lot 7;
(b)subject to the subdivision (amalgamation) approval, the approval of the preexisting grouped dwelling excised from Lot 6 as a caretaker's dwelling on Lot 7;
(c)the approval of the remaining preexisting dwelling on Lot 6 as a caretaker's dwelling;
(d)two new grouped dwellings on Lot 6; and
(e)a caretaker's dwelling on Lot 32.
The rationale for the proposal was explained in a letter from Drescher and Associates to the City dated 10 July 2007 which included the following:
I refer to the above land and our previous discussions centreing around the Le family's ability to make provision for residences for all family and related members in close proximity to their families and their market gardening, sorting warehouse and coolroom storage operation in Safari Place, Carabooda. As discussed at our meeting, at which Ward Councillors and Mr Dan Le were present, the youngest family member speaking on behalf of the owner's [sic] of the property, outlined the families [sic] desire to live adjacent to each other. The family members are listed on Attachment A who are all employed by TLF Export Co, the company that runs the operation [Attachment A is entitled 'Housing requirements for the Le and Huynh families' and lists 12 occupants of five existing "homes" on Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 32 and seven occupants of three proposed "homes" on Lot 6 and Lot 32].
All the members of the family are desirous of living close to each other, as is the Vietnamese custom. They all also participate in the market gardening, sorting and distribution activity and are all required to be on call at all times to manage the growing, harvesting and distribution of the produce throughout Australia …
The very nature of the size of the land area involved and the extent of the scale and number of horticultural machinery required to run the operation as well as the number of production bores required to service the garden together with the extensive reticulation system which require constant checking and maintenance warrants the demand for the extra housing for the family members who are all[,] in fact, caretakers of the intensive market garden operation. This therefore requires a considerable number of caretakers to maintain the plant and equipment as well as constant tending to the established crops.
In fact, the supervision of the entire market garden operation requires every member of the family to be on site. …
On 9 October 2007, the Council resolved as follows:
That Council, APPROVES 'IN PRINCIPLE' an application for two (2) grouped dwellings and one (1) caretaker's dwelling for Lots 6 and 7 Safari Place and one (1) dwelling and a caretaker's dwelling for Lot 32 Safari Place, Carabooda subject to the following:
1.The preparation of restrictive covenant in gross in favour of the City of Wanneroo against the lot prepared at the owner's expense by solicitors for the Council to:
(a)preclude the owner or future owners of the lot from seeking strata subdivision or subdivision approval in any form for the lot.
(b)restrict the occupants of the second grouped dwelling and caretaker's residence to only members of the landowner's family engaged in the care of the buildings, plant, equipment or grounds associated with an industry, business, office or recreation area carried on or existing on the same lot.
2.The applicant obtaining approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission for boundary adjustment between Lots 6 and 7 to facilitate the proposed development.
3.That any and all future decisions relating to this item be brought before Council.
The subdivision of Lot 6 and Lot 7 to create Lot 106 and Lot 107 was supported by the City by letter dated 10 January 2008 and was approved by the Commission on 1 April 2008. Titles for Lot 106 and Lot 107 were issued on 17 May 2010. The consequence of the approved subdivision is that:
(a)one dwelling exists on Lot 106; and
(b)three dwellings exist on Lot 107.

Scheme provisions

Lot 106 and Lot 107 are zoned Rural Resource under the Scheme. Clause 3.2.1 of DPS 2 states:
The Zoning Table (hereinafter called Table 1) indicates subject to the provisions of the Scheme, the permissibility of use classes within the various zones. The permissibility of any use class is indicated by a symbol determined by cross-reference between the list of 'Use Classes' listed down the left hand side of Table 1 and the 'Zones' listed along the top of Table 1.
Table 1 relevantly indicates the following in relation to land use permissibility in the Rural Resource zone:
(a)the use class 'grouped dwelling' is identified as an 'X' use, that is, '[a] use that is not permitted except where provision is made specifically for Council to approve an otherwise prohibited use': see cl 3.2.2; and
(b)the use class 'caretaker's dwelling' is an 'A' use, meaning that it is '[a] use that is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving notice in accordance with clause 6.7': see cl 3.2.2.
The term 'caretaker's dwelling' is defined in Sch 1 of the Scheme to mean:
a building used as a dwelling by a person having the care of the building, plant, equipment or grounds associated with an industry, business, office or recreation area carried on or existing on the same site.
The term 'grouped dwelling' is defined in Appendix 1 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008) (Codes) (which applies in respect of residential development under cl 1.9.2 of DPS 2) as follows:
A dwelling that is one of a group of two or more dwellings on the same lot such that no dwelling is placed wholly or partly vertically above another, except where special conditions of landscape or topography dictate otherwise, and includes a dwelling on a survey strata with common property.
Clause 3.2.3 of DPS 2 states:
Where in Table 1 a particular use is mentioned[,] it is deemed to be excluded from any other use class which by its more general terms might otherwise include such particular use.
Clause 3.17.3 of DPS 2 states as follows:
Where residential development is carried out in the Rural Resource Zone, the following provisions shall apply:
3.17.3no person shall construct any building or undertake any development or other works, other than a fire break or an equivalent alternative proposed by Council or an accessway, closer than 7.5 metres to a street alignment or 4 metres to any other boundary;
a)Notwithstanding that 'Grouped Dwelling' is designated as a not permitted use class in the Rural Resource Zone in Table 1, the Council may approve the development of a maximum of two grouped dwellings on a lot if having regard to all relevant considerations it is reasonable to do so provided the Council is satisfied of all the following facts:
(i)The lot is a minimum of 5 hectares in area if situated south of Flynn Drive and 8 hectares in area if situated north of Flynn Drive[.]
(ii)Both dwellings will be erected in a position that complies with all other provisions of the Scheme, subject to any discretionary modifications by the Council[.]
(iii)The second dwelling is necessary or desirable to provide accommodation on the lot for a person or persons who will assist in the lawful management or exploitation of a rural or other resource on the land consistent with the objectives of the Zone[.]
(iv)There is no current proposal for or intention of any person to propose subdivision of the lot including strata or survey strata subdivision.
b)If the Council approves or has at any time before the gazettal of the [S]cheme approved a second dwelling on a lot in the circumstances set out in paragraph (a), that approval shall not be and shall not be taken to be support in any way for the future subdivision or strata subdivision of the lot or provision of separate certificates of title in respect of the two dwellings on the lot.
c)It is the intent of the preceding paragraphs (b) and (c) [sic] that a second dwelling on a lot in this zone should be allowed to facilitate the carrying on of rural and resource exploitation uses, and the provisions should expressly not be used presently or in the future to support fragmentation of the land, or the alienation of ownership or use of either of the dwellings from the ownership and control of the person carrying on the rural or resource exploitation use.
d)Notwithstanding anything set out in the preceding paragraphs, any approval by the Council for two grouped dwellings under the preceding paragraph (a) shall in any case require a person seeking approval for a second dwelling to grant a Restrictive Covenant in gross in favour of the Council against the lot prepared at that owner's expense by solicitors for the Council precluding the owner or any future owner of the lot from seeking strata subdivision or subdivision approval in any form for the lot.
For the purposes of determination of the preliminary issues, the parties agree that:
(a)Lot 106 is of a sufficient size to meet the requirement of para (a)(i) of cl 3.17.3 of DPS 2;
(b)the two new proposed dwellings will be erected in a position that complies with all other provisions of the Scheme and therefore the proposed development satisfies para (a)(ii) of cl 3.17.3 of DPS 2;
(c)the second of the proposed dwellings on Lot 106 is necessary or desirable to provide accommodation on the lot for a person or persons who will assist in the lawful management or exploitation of a rural resource on the land consistent with the objectives of the zone in satisfaction of para (a)(iii) of cl 3.17.3 of DPS 2; and
(d)there is no current proposal for or intention of any person to propose subdivision of Lot 106, including strata or survey strata subdivision, in satisfaction of para (a)(iv) of cl 3.17.3 of DPS 2.

What is the proper land use classification of the proposed development under DPS 2?

Thangs and Mr Dan Le contended that:
(a)the two new dwellings that are proposed in the development application to be constructed on Lot 106 should be treated as 'grouped dwellings' and capable of approval under cl 3.17.3 of DPS 2; and
(b)the existing dwelling on Lot 106 should be treated as a 'caretaker's dwelling' and capable of approval under the Scheme.
Thangs and Mr Dan Le submitted that 'the fundamental issue is to ascertain objectively the correct categorisation of the residential component of each of the "caretaker's dwelling" and "grouped dwelling" land uses' and that an objective assessment results in:
(a)accommodation as a 'caretaker's dwelling' being provided as a consequence of the activity/activities on the land for which the occupant of the dwelling performs a caretaking function (emphasis added); ie there is a legitimate and demonstratable [sic] need for a person to reside on the property to care for any building, plant, equipment or grounds; and
(b)accommodation as a 'grouped dwelling' being provided as a consequence of the occupant of the dwelling assisting in the management or exploitation of the land, it being the intent of the exception (under clause 3.17.3(a)(iii) as read with clause 3.17.3(c) of the Scheme) 'that a second dwelling on a lot in this zone should be allowed to facilitate the carrying on of rural and resource exploitation uses' (emphasis added).
In contrast, the City contended that the proper land use classification of the proposed development is grouped dwellings. The City submitted that the nature of the proposed use of the existing dwelling on Lot 106 would not satisfy the definition of 'caretaker's dwelling' under the Scheme. The City submitted that:
It is plain from the information provided in support of the applicants' proposal that all of the dwellings on Lot 106 (and indeed on Lot 32 and Lot<107) serve the same purposes. The primary purpose is to achieve the desire of the family members to live close to each other, in the 'Vietnamese custom'. …
A shared secondary purpose is to allow the family members to live in close proximity to the market garden at which they work.
As the purposes to which each of the three dwellings are, or are to be, put are identical, the use class within which each of the three dwellings fits must also be identical. Nothing in the applicants' proposal allows the dwellings to be classified differently, or as anything other than 'Grouped Dwellings'.

The City also emphasised the use of the indefinite article 'a' before 'person' and the use of the definite article 'the' before 'care' in the definition of 'caretaker's dwelling'. The City submitted that, in the circumstances of this case, the proposed use of the existing dwelling on Lot 106 would not satisfy the definition of 'caretaker's dwelling' because the members of the extended Le and Huynh families who reside or wish to reside on Lot 106, Lot 107 and Lot 32 share the care of the facility.
The City submitted that the proposed development is not capable of approval under the Scheme, because it would result in three grouped dwellings on Lot 6, whereas cl 3.17.3(a) of DPS 2 restricts the number of grouped dwellings on a lot in the Rural Resource zone to two.
In Pearce and City of Wanneroo [2010] WASAT 77, the Tribunal said, at [35], that:
Having regard to the evidence as to what activity is, in reality, proposed by a development application, it is for the planning authority to characterise the proposed land use and then determine the application on its planning merits. …
Having regard to the evidence as to what activity is proposed in respect of the existing dwelling and the two proposed dwellings on Lot 106, the Tribunal considers that the proper classification of the proposed development under DPS 2 does not include a caretaker's dwelling but rather comprises three grouped dwellings.
As noted earlier, the letter from Drescher and Associates dated 10 July 2007 states that:
All members of the family … participate in the market garden, sorting and distribution activity and all are required to be on call at all times to manage the growing, harvesting and distribution of the produce throughout Australia. …
The very nature of the size of the land area involved and the extent of the scale and number of horticultural machinery required to run the operation as well as the number of production bores required to service the garden together with the extensive reticulation which require constant checking and maintenance warrants the demand for extra housing for the family who are all[,] in fact, caretakers of this intensive market garden operation. This therefore requires a considerable number of caretakers to maintain the plant and equipment as well as constant tending to establish crops.
In fact, the supervision of the entire market garden operation requires every member of the family to be available on site. (Emphasis in bold added)
In the circumstances of this case, the existing dwelling would not be used as a dwelling by 'a person having the care' of the facility (emphasis in bold added), as required by the definition of 'caretaker's dwelling' under the Scheme.
Rather than a single person, there are a considerable number of family members who collectively care for the facility. As Drescher and Associates said, 'the family … are all[,] in fact, caretakers of this intensive market garden operation'.
Furthermore, while the family members collectively care for the facility, it appears that this is merely an incidental aspect of their work. The principal element of their work is the operation of the market garden.
Finally, the existing dwelling would adjoin the two proposed dwellings which would each be occupied by family members working in (and collectively caring for) the facility. There is not, therefore, to quote Thangs' and Mr Dan Le's submission, 'a legitimate and demonstrable need for a person to reside on the property [in the existing dwelling] to care for any building, plant, equipment or grounds', because members of the family who work in (and collectively care for) the market garden would also reside in two other dwellings on Lot 106 which would be in a similar location to the existing dwelling.
As the existing dwelling and two proposed dwellings on Lot 106 would be 'a group of two or more dwellings on the same lot such that no dwelling is placed wholly or partly vertically above another', they each fall within the terms of the definition of 'grouped dwelling' under the Codes and, hence, for the purposes of DPS 2. The proper land use classification of the proposed development under DPS 2 is, therefore, grouped dwellings.

Is the proposed development capable of approval under DPS 2?

Clause 3.17.3(a) of the Scheme allows the Council to approve a maximum of two grouped dwellings on a lot in the Rural Resource zone. The proposed dwelling is not capable of approval, because it involves the construction of two grouped dwellings in addition to the existing dwelling that would be a third grouped dwelling on Lot 106.
Clause 4.2.1 of the Scheme allows the Council to approve a development application that 'does not comply with a development standard or requirement prescribed under the Scheme'. While the maximum number of grouped dwellings prescribed by cl 3.17.3(a) of DPS 2 appears to be a 'standard or requirement', cl 4.1 of DPS 2 states that cl 3.17 of DPS 2 'shall prevail if there is any conflict or inconsistency' with, among other provisions, cl 4.2.1 of DPS 2. The maximum number of grouped dwellings prescribed by cl 3.17.3(a) of DPS 2 is, therefore, not subject to variation under cl 4.2.1 of the Scheme.
The City also submitted that, even if the existing dwelling on Lot 106 were classified as a caretaker's dwelling for the purposes of DPS 2, on its proper interpretation, cl 3.17.3 of the Scheme does not permit the construction and use of two grouped dwellings in addition to a caretaker's dwelling on Lot 106. In support of this submission, the City relied on the introductory words of cl 3.17.3 'Where residential development is carried out in the Rural Resource Zone, the following provisions shall apply:' and the references to 'the second dwelling' or 'a second dwelling' (rather than 'grouped dwelling') in various parts of the clause.
In consequence of the Tribunal's earlier finding as to classification, it is unnecessary to determine whether, had the proper land use classification of the existing dwelling been as a caretaker's dwelling, the proposed development would not be capable of approval under cl 3.17.3 of DPS 2. This is fortunate, because inconsistent indications in cl 3.17.3 of DPS 2 would make its interpretation in this regard a very difficult task. The Tribunal suggests that the Council should review the terms of cl 3.17.3 and determine whether the clause should be amended to clearly reflect the Council's understanding of its intention.
On the one hand, the introductory words of cl 3.17.3 suggest, as the City submitted, an intention to regulate all residential development in the Rural Resource zone. The term 'residential development' is not defined in or for the purposes of the Scheme. Under cl 1.9.3 of DPS 2, the term 'residential development' is, therefore, to be given its normal and common meaning. The adjective 'residential' is relevantly defined in The Macquarie Dictionary (4th ed, Sydney, 2005) at 1204 as 'of or relating to residence or residences'. The noun 'residence' is relevantly defined at 1204 as 'the place, especially the house, in which one resides; dwelling place; dwelling'. A 'caretaker's dwelling', as defined in DPS 2 is, therefore, a 'residential development'.
However, para (a) of cl 3.17.3 commences with the words 'Notwithstanding that "Grouped Dwelling" is designated as a not permitted use class in the Rural Resource Zone in Table 1, …'. These words suggest an intention to regulate only 'grouped dwelling' development. Furthermore, while subsequent parts of the clause refer to 'the second dwelling' (para (a)(iii)), 'a second dwelling' (para (b) and para (c)), and 'the two dwellings' (para (b)), (rather than, in each case, 'grouped dwelling(s)'), para (a) and para (d) of the clause refer to 'two grouped dwellings'.
If it is the Council's intention that cl 3.17.3 of DPS 2 should limit the number of residential dwellings (including both grouped dwellings and caretaker's dwellings) in the Rural Resource zone to two, then it should consider amending the clause to insert the words 'and that "Caretaker's Dwelling" is designated as a use class that is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving notice in accordance with Clause 6.7' (or words to this effect) before the words 'in the Rural Resource Zone' and then delete the word 'grouped' wherever it appears in the remainder of the clause. On the other hand, if it is the Council's intention that the clause should only limit the number of grouped dwellings (and not other residential development), then it should consider amending the clause to delete the introductory words 'Where residential development is carried out in the Rural Resource Zone, the following provisions shall apply:'

Conclusion

The preliminary issues are answered as follows:
1)The proper land use classification of the proposed development under DPS 2 is grouped dwellings.
2)The proposed development is not capable of approval under DPS 2.
It follows from the determination of the preliminary issues that the application for review should be dismissed and the decision of the Council to refuse development approval should be affirmed.

Orders

The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The preliminary issues are answered as follows:
1)The proper land use classification of the proposed development under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2 is grouped dwellings.
2)The proposed development is not capable of approval under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2.
2.The application for review is dismissed.
3.The decision made by the respondent on 4 May 2010 to refuse development approval for the construction of two grouped dwellings in addition to the existing dwelling at No 94 Safari Place, Carabooda (Lot 106 on Deposited Plan 65092) is affirmed.

I certify that this and the preceding [46] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D R PARRY, SENIOR MEMBER

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Le and City Of Wanneroo [2010] WASAT 154

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

2

PEARCE and CITY OF WANNEROO [2010] WASAT 77