MCDONALD and THE OWNERS OF THE 19TH TEE ESTATE STRATA PLAN 66901 - [2024] WASAT 82

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)
CITATION:   MCDONALD and THE OWNERS OF THE 19TH TEE ESTATE STRATA PLAN 66901 [2024] WASAT 82
MEMBER:   MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER
HEARD:   28 JUNE 2024
DELIVERED          :   6 AUGUST 2024
FILE NO/S:   CC 1374 of 2023
BETWEEN:   DENNIS MCDONALD
First Applicant
COLLEEN ANNE MCDONALD
Second Applicant
AND
THE OWNERS OF THE 19TH TEE ESTATE STRATA PLAN 66901
Respondent

Catchwords:

Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) - Survey strata plan - Scheme dispute - Financial management of strata company - Administrative fund - Levy contribution on owners - Amounts to be raised for payment into administrative fund - Strata manager - Strata management fees - Strata scheme expenses - By-laws - Unit entitlement - Common property - Exemption from paying contribution - Whether by-law requiring all lot owners to contribute towards the strata management's fees is invalid - Whether by-law unfairly prejudicial or unfairly discriminatory - Whether by-law oppressive or unreasonable - Whether contribution levied excessive - Tribunal proceedings - Statutory discretion to make orders to resolve dispute or proceeding

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 32, s 87(2), s 87(3), s 87(6)
State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 42A
Strata Titles (General) Regulations 2019 (WA)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (prior to 1 May 2020), s 5C, s 36, s 42, s 42A, s 42B, s 42(2), s 87(1)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 3, s 12, s 44, s 44(1), s 44(2), s 46(j), s 46(j)(i), s 46(j)(ii), s 91, s 100, s 100(1)(a), s 100(1)(b), s 100(1)(c), s 101, s 102, s 119, s 119(1), s 143(1), s 143(5), s 144, s 145, s 197, s 197(1)(a)(i), s 197(1)(a)(ii), s 197(1)(a)(vi), s 197(2), s 197(3), s 197(4), s 199, s 200, s 200(1), s 200(2)(a), s 200(7), s 202, s 209, Sch 2A, Pt 4, Div 4, Pt 8, Div 1, Pt 9, Pt 13, Sch 1, Sch 2, Sch 5, cl 4, cl 23
Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018 (WA)
Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	In Person
Second Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

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

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

Brooks and Gransden Building Company Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASAT 86
Efficient Building Team Pty Ltd and Perth Recruitment Services Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 25
Hopkins and Clayton [2007] WASAT 255
The Owners of Broome Beach Resort Strata Scheme 32190 and Waydanette Pty Ltd [2022] WASAT 56
Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

Mr Dennis McDonald and Mrs Colleen McDonald (the applicants) own Lot 3 on survey-strata plan 66901 (survey-strata plan). They seek the resolution of a dispute concerning the 'strata management fees' for the survey-strata scheme known as 'The 19TH Tee Estate' situated in Meadow Springs.
The applicants strongly assert that they receive no service from the strata manager and therefore they should not be charged the quarterly 'strata management fees'. The applicants describe the quarterly contribution for 'strata management fees' (referred to interchangeably by the parties as the 'operating levy', 'levies operating fund', 'admin fund levy', 'admin contribution', 'administration fee levy contributions', 'management fee levy', 'management fee admin contributions', and 'quarterly admin levy') as nothing but a 'money grab'. In these reasons I will refer to the disputed quarterly contribution for strata management services as the 'quarterly contribution' (quarterly contribution).
The Owners of the 19TH Tee Estate Strata Plan 66901 is the respondent in these proceeding (strata company). The strata company's position is that the application should be dismissed as the strata manager provides services to all owners and the quarterly contribution is levied on all owners in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective lots as required by scheme by-law 24(2) and in any event the quarterly contribution is not prejudicial against any owner and is not unreasonable.

Previous proceeding CC 1018 of 2023

By way of background, in an earlier proceeding filed with the Tribunal on 18 July 2023 (matter CC 1018 of 2023), Mr McDonald sought an order from the Tribunal exempting Lot 3, from having to pay the 'administration fees' in respect of common property areas which are marked as 'CP28' and 'CP29' on sheet 1 and sheet 2 of the survey-strata plan. The reason or ground given by Mr McDonald in that application was that as the owner of Lot 3, he has no right to access CP28 and CP29 as stated in scheme by-law 24(1) and therefore he should not have to pay the 'administration fees'.
The Tribunal referred that matter (CC 1018 of 2023) to mediation. It resolved at mediation on 28 September 2023. The following note and order was made by the Tribunal (differently constituted) for matter CC 1018 of 2023:[1]
[1] HB at page 17.
The Tribunal notes that:
The proceeding concerns a dispute between the parties with respect to a scheme dispute pursuant to s 197(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
While not the subject of orders, the parties have agreed:
(a)The two current elected members of the Council of Owners will recommend to the new member of the Council of Owners to instruct the strata manager to waive any outstanding strata levies owed by lot 3 to the strata company.
(b)The applicant in these proceedings agrees to pay to the strata company all future levies issued pursuant to paragraph 24(2) of the management statement commencing from November 2023.
(c)The respondent agrees to not seek payment from the applicant or to charge or levy any fees against unit 3 in respect of the strata managers attendance or attributable to the strata managers attendance at the mediation held on 28 September 2023 and the directions hearing held on 11 August 2023.
The parties have agreed to resolve the whole of the dispute between them on the basis of the orders set out below.
Pursuant to s 46(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and to give effect to the terms of settlement, the Tribunal orders by consent:
1.The applicant has leave to withdraw the proceeding and the proceeding is withdrawn.
2.There is no order as to costs.

Current application CC 1374 of 2023 and basis for it

It was not long after the Tribunal made the above order, that the applicants filed on 15 November 2023 their current application with the Tribunal (matter CC 1374 of 2023) under s 197(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act) seeking the resolution of a scheme dispute.
In these proceedings, the applicants ask the Tribunal to amend the strata scheme by-law 24(2) such that no levy is raised against 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the Camden Lots) for strata management fees. In other words, the applicants assert that the Camden Lots, which includes their Lot 3, should be exempted from paying any contribution under bylaw 24(2). The applicants say they have the support of the other owners of the Camden Lots, but they decided to make the application to the Tribunal alone as it would be 'messy' for them to represent the other owners.
As other owners in the strata complex may be impacted by the decision of the Tribunal, by order, the Tribunal invited all the other owners, which includes the owners of the Camden Lots to inform the Tribunal if they wished to be joined as a party to the proceeding. No other owner informed the Tribunal that they wished to be joined as a party to the proceeding. The Tribunal therefore proceeded on the basis that the applicants, as the owners of Lot 3, were the only applicants in these proceedings.
In addition, the applicants seek their costs in these proceedings in the amount of $110.60 comprised of Landgate fees to obtain the current survey-strata plan and a Certificate of Title of their Lot 3 as well as the application fee to lodge their application with the Tribunal.
These proceedings before the Tribunal come within the Tribunal's original jurisdiction (s 209 of the ST Act).
In the reasons which follow, I explain why the application is unsuccessful. The result is that the application is dismissed.

Relevant procedural history and evidence

Following the usual programming orders by the Tribunal, I heard the matter on 28 June 2024, following which I reserved my decision.
At the final hearing, the Tribunal marked the following documents, which the parties identified as the documents that they intend to rely on, and to which I have had regard for the purpose of my determination in these proceedings, as an exhibit:[2]
Exhibit 1Hearing book (prepared by the Tribunal) dated 20 June 2024 (pages 1 - 199) (HB).
[2] Although forming part of the HB, the parties' contentions and submissions are taken to be submissions, rather than evidence.
In these proceedings, the applicants and the strata company are unrepresented.
Neither party called any witnesses.
Mr McDonald put the case for the applicants. Further, Mr McDonald made closing oral submissions urging the Tribunal to make an order amending scheme by-law 24(2) to exclude the applicants, as the owners of Lot 3, from paying the quarterly contribution.
Mr Tony Mylotte and Mr Geoff Powell, both of whom are members of the council, put the case for the respondent strata company. Further, Mr Mylotte made closing oral submissions for the strata company submitting that the application should be dismissed.
In order to achieve the objectives of the Tribunal as set out in s 9 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), which includes:
(a)achieving the resolution of disputes fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case;
(b)acting as speedily and with as little formality and technicality as is practicable; and
(c)minimising the costs to the parties
and in accordance with the practice and procedures of the Tribunal informed by s 32 of the SAT Act, while each party was putting their case, I asked questions of each party, in order for me to determine the questions or issues that arise in these proceedings (see below at [20]).
I will now set out the issues or questions to be determined by me in these proceedings, followed by the legal framework by reference to the relevant regulatory framework, and I will then make relevant findings of facts. Finally, I will address each of the issues for determination in turn.

Issues

The issues or questions that arise for determination in these proceedings are:

Issue 1:       Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute?
Issue 2:       Whether the strata company is required to determine amounts to be raised for payment into the administrative fund?
Issue 3:      Whether the strata company may levy contributions on owners of lots otherwise than in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective lots?
Issue 4: Whether Sch 1 by-law 24(2) regarding strata management fees is invalid?
Issue 5: Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to make an order exempting the applicants (being the owners of Lot 3) from the requirements of Sch 1 by-law 24(2)?

It is first necessary to set out the regulatory framework and factual background against which the consideration of the above issues must be made.

Regulatory framework

Survey-strata plan

On 30 April 2014, survey-strata plan 66901 was registered by the Registrar of Titles.
The strata scheme is known as 'The 19TH Tee Estate' and is described on the survey-strata plan as:
Twenty Seven residential lots and Two common property lots situated on Lot 1313 on DP 49129[.]
Sheet 1 of the survey-strata plan shows two area of common property. They are marked 'CP28' and 'CP29'. The note to sheet 1 of the surveystrata plan provides as follows:
Common property Lot CP28 is known as Galveston Court and common property Lot CP29 is knowns as Tralee Place - for street address purpose only and are not public roads.
By notification (instrument J720133) an easement burden was created for telecommunications supply purposes to NBN Co Ltd and an easement burden for underground electricity purposes. The notification was registered by the Registrar of Titles on 28 April 2006. Sheet 3 of the survey-strata plan sets out land burdened and land benefited by these easements. For example, the applicants' Lot 3 is benefited and burdened by the easement of electricity by underground cables. Details of the easement are reflected on the Certificate of Title for the applicants' Lot 3.
Finally, by notification (instrument M622455) the Management Statement was registered by the Registrar of Titles on 30 April 2014 (management statement).
Form 3 of the survey-strata scheme sets out, amongst other things, the aggregate unit entitlement which for this scheme is 1,000 units. The applicants' Lot 3 has a unit entitlement of 33 units.

Prior Act

The ST Act was extensively amended by the Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018 (WA) (the Amending Act). Those amendments came into effect on 1 May 2020. As the current proceedings were commenced after the amendments took effect, the ST Act in its amended form applies to applicants' application. Accordingly, in these reasons I have referred to the ST Act as it applies from 1 May 2020. However, as the management statement was registered on 30 April 2014, that is under the legislation prior to the amendments, I will need to refer to relevant provisions in the ST Act which applied prior to 1 May 2020 (the Prior Act).
When the survey-strata plan was lodged for registration on 30 April 2014 it was possible under the Prior Act for a management statement to be lodged for registration which sets out:
(a)by-laws of the strata company that were to have effect under s 42, s 42A and s 42B of the Prior Act; and
(b)amendments and repeals referred to in s 42(2) of the Prior Act
and it was possible to include by-laws in relation to any matter specified in Sch 2A (s 5C of the Prior Act).
Upon registration of the management statement, the by-laws set out in the statement, and any amendments and repeals, had effect for the purposes of s 42 of the Prior Act.
Section 42 of the Prior Act was headed 'By-laws'. This provision was in place when the management statement for The 19TH Tee Estate (which included by-laws 21 through to 26) was registered on 30 April 2014. Section 42 included a general by-law making power for the strata company and specifically dealt with the power of the strata company to make by-laws for an exclusive use.
Relevantly s 42 of the Prior Act provided as follows:
42.By-laws
(1)A strata company may make by-laws, not inconsistent with this Act for —
(a)its corporate affairs; and
(b)any matter specified in Schedule 2A [matters that may be provided for in the management statement]; and
(c)other matters relating to the management, control, use and enjoyment of the lots and any common property.
…
(6)Without limiting the operation of any other provision of this Act, the by-laws for the time being in force bind the strata company and the proprietors and any mortgagee in possession (whether by himself or any other person) or occupier or other resident of a lot to the same extent as if the by-laws had been signed and sealed by the strata company and each proprietor and each such mortgagee, occupier or other resident respectively and as if they contained mutual covenants to observe and perform all the provisions of the bylaws.
…
(8)Without limiting the generality of any other provision of this section other than subsection (1), a strata company may, with the consent in writing of the of the proprietor of a lot, pursuant to a resolution without dissent (or unanimous resolution, in the case of a twolot scheme) make, under this subsection only and not otherwise, a by-law in respect of that lot conferring on that proprietor the exclusive use and enjoyment of, or special privileges in respect of, the common property or any part of it upon such terms and conditions (including the proper maintaining and keeping in a state of good and serviceable repair of the common property or that part of the common property, as the case may be, and the payment of money by that proprietor to the strata company) as may be specified in the by-law and may, pursuant to a resolution without dissent (…), make a bylaw amending or repealing any by-law made under this subsection.
(9)After the expiration of the period of 2 years that next succeeds the making, or purported making, of a by-law referred to in subsection (8) (including a by-law so referred to that amends, adds to or repeals another bylaw), it shall be conclusively presumed that all conditions and preliminary steps precedent to the making of the by-law have been complied with and performed.
(10)Any by-law referred to in subsection (8) shall, while it remains in force, ensure as appurtenant to, and for the benefit of, the law in respect of which it was made and the proprietor, occupier and (subject to the terms of the by-law) any other resident thereof for the time being.
(11)The proprietor for the time being of a lot in respect of which a by-law referred to in subsection (8) is in force –
(a)is, subject to section 43(4), liable to pay to the strata company any moneys referred to in the by-law in accordance with the by-law; and
(b)is, unless excused by the by-law, responsible for the performance of the duty of the strata company under section 35(1)(c) in respect of the common property, to which the by-law relates.
…
(13)Any moneys payable by a proprietor to the strata company under a by-law referred to in subsection (8) or pursuant to subsection (12) may be recovered, as a debt, by the strata company in a court of competent jurisdiction.

ST Act

The general by-law making power for a strata company is now found in s 44 of the ST Act. This provision forms part of Div 4 of Pt 4 of the ST Act which is headed 'Scheme by-laws', with Pt 4 headed 'Scheme documents'.
Section 12 of the ST Act provides that a strata titles scheme is registered when the 'scheme documents' are registered and incorporated in the Register held by the Registrar of Titles under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA). The 'scheme documents' comprise:
(a)a scheme notice;
(b)a scheme plan;
(c)a schedule of unit entitlements; and
(d)the scheme by-laws.

By-laws

The strata company may make 'governance by-laws' and 'conduct bylaws' for the survey-strata titles scheme, including by-laws that amend or repeal the by-laws it is taken to have made on the registration of the scheme: s 44 of the ST Act.
The term 'governance by-laws' is defined in s 3 of the ST Act and includes scheme by-laws dealing with 'exclusive use' of common property in the scheme. The term 'conduct by-laws' is also defined in s 3 of the ST Act and excludes 'governance by-laws'.
Section 46 falls within Division 4 of Part 4 of the ST Act. That section is headed 'Invalidity of scheme by-laws'. Relevantly, s 46(j) of the ST Act provides that a scheme by-law is invalid:
(j)to the extent that, having regard to the interest 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.

Administrative fund and contributions

Subdivision 3 of Div 1 of Pt 8 of the ST Act is headed 'Administrative and reserve funds and contributions'. Sections 100, 101 and 102 of the ST Act set out what the strata company must do in terms of its financial management obligations.
Section 100(1)(a) of the ST Act requires the strata company to establish a fund for administrative expenses that they deem sufficient for the control and management of the common property, for the payment of any insurance premiums and for the discharge of any other obligation of the strata company.

Typical strata scheme expenses that require management include:
•fees payable to a strata manager and other suppliers of services to the strata company such as a handyman;
•costs of obtaining and maintaining record keeping systems and other computer hardware and software;
•costs of recovering unpaid levies and other debts owed to the strata company; and
•costs of taking legal proceedings in the Tribunal and the courts.
It is a requirement for the strata company to determine the amounts to be raised for payment into the administrative fund (s 100(1)(b) of the ST Act).
Having determined the amounts to be raised, the strata company must then, pursuant to s 100(1)(c) of the ST Act, raise the amounts so determined by levying contributions on owners of lots:
(i)in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective lots; or
(ii)if the scheme by-laws provide for a different basis for levying contributions, in accordance with that basis.
Any contribution levied by the strata company is due and payable to the strata company in accordance with the terms of the decision to make the levy and if the contribution levied is not paid when due, then the outstanding amount may be recovered as a debt by the strata company in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 101 of the ST Act requires the strata company to keep proper accounting records of its income and expenditure.
Section 102 of the ST Act requires the strata company to prepare a budget for each financial year and submit it for approval to its Annual General Meeting (AGM).

Strata managers

Part 9 of the ST Act is headed 'Strata managers'.
Section 143(1) of the ST Act defines a strata manager as a person who is authorised by the strata company to perform a 'specified scheme function'.
The term 'scheme function' is defined in s 3 of the ST Act as a function of the strata company, or a function of the council or a function of an officer of the strata company. Functions of the strata company are set out in detail in Pt 8 of the ST Act and include (refer to s 91 to s 119 of the ST Act):
(a)establishing an administrative fund;
(b)keeping proper accounting records of its income and expenses;
(c)preparing a budget for each financial year;
(d)preparing and maintaining a strata roll; and
(e)enforcing compliance with scheme by-laws.
The engagement of a strata manager by the strata company to carry out some of its functions does not remove the need for a council. Further, the powers of the strata manager are only those given to the strata manager by the strata company and must not be any of the functions set out in s 143(5) of the ST Act that a strata manager cannot be authorised to perform.
The strata manager must have a written contract with the strata company that specifies the scheme functions the strata manager is to perform and the strata manager's remuneration (s 144 and s 145 of the ST Act).

Resolution of scheme dispute

Section 197 of the ST Act provides for the resolution of certain 'scheme disputes' including a dispute between scheme participants about (s 197(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the ST Act):
(a)the scheme documents, including the validity of scheme bylaws;
(b)the performance of, or the failure to perform a function conferred or imposed on a person by the ST Act or the scheme by-laws; and
(c)any other matter arising under the St Act or the scheme by-laws.
Various disputes are not 'scheme disputes'. They are set out in s 197(3) of the ST Act.
Both the strata company and the applicants are 'scheme participants' as that term is defined in s 197(2) of the ST Act. This is because both the strata company and a member of the strata company (in other words a lot owner) are expressly included in the list of scheme participants in s 197(2) of the ST Act.
Section 197(4) provides that an application to the Tribunal may be made by a party to the dispute for the resolution of a scheme dispute. In this case, the applicants, as the joint owners of Lot 3, made the application to the Tribunal.

Tribunal proceedings

Part 13 of the ST Act deals with Tribunal proceedings.
In proceedings under the ST Act, the Tribunal may make any order it considers appropriate to resolve the dispute or proceeding (s 200(1) of the ST Act). The types of orders that the Tribunal may make are set out in s 200 of the ST Act and include, for example, an order under s 200(2)(a) of the ST Act requiring a scheme document (for example, the scheme by-laws) to be amended in a specified manner.
In addition, the Tribunal may make a declaration concerning a matter in the proceeding instead of any order the Tribunal may make, or in addition to any order the Tribunal makes in the proceeding (s 199 of the ST Act).
In addition, the Tribunal may provide that the order is to remain in force for a specified period, until a specified event or until further order (s 200(7) of the ST Act).
Finally, it is also possible for the Tribunal to make a decision not to make an order. This is provided for in s 202 of the ST Act.

Management statement

The management statement registered by the Register of Titles on 30 April 2014[3] sets out the by-laws of the strata company or amendments to the by-laws contained in Schedules 1 and 2 of the ST Act.
[3] HB at pages 147 to 155.
Relevant to these proceedings is Sch 1 by-laws 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 which provide:
21.COMMON SERVICES MAY BE PARTLY LOCATED ON A LOT
The original proprietor has where possible, located common services to a lot within CP28 and CP29. The proprietors acknowledge that some services including, pipes, wire cabling and ducts that carry water, sewer, electricity, gas, storm water and communications that are shared by all lots may be located partly within a lot. The proprietor of the lot will not object, remove or interfere with these services and will comply with section 11 of the Act and permit entry to its lots by the strata company or its agents to repair and maintain a service. A copy of the plan for all services will be retained by the strata company records.
22.SHARED USE OF CP28
The proprietors of lots 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 are hereby granted shared use of CP 28 and shall:
(a)at all times and at their shared costs, maintain and keep CP28 in a clean, neat and tidy condition;
(b)be responsible at their shared costs to maintain any paving, drainage and landscaping within CP28 to a reasonable standard;
(c)use CP28 solely for the purpose of vehicle and pedestrian access and egress;
(d)not be permitted to park a motor vehicle within CP28 unless they have the permission of the other proprietors or occupiers of lots who use CP28;
(e)if the lots within the strata scheme are individually insured, indemnify the strata company against all claims for damages, loss, injury or death arising from the use of CP28 by having the appropriate public liability insurance in place for CP28.
23.SHARED USE OF CP29
The proprietors of lots 8, 17 and 18 are hereby granted shared use of CP29 and shall:
(a)at all times and at their shared costs, maintain and keep CP29 in a clean, neat and tidy condition;
(b)be responsible at their shared costs to maintain any paying, drainage and landscaping within CP29 to a reasonable standard;
(c)use CP29 solely for the purpose of vehicle and pedestrian access and egress;
(d)not be permitted to park a motor vehicle within CP29 unless they have the permission of the other proprietors or occupiers of lots who use CP29;
(e)if the lots within the strata scheme are individually insured, indemnify the strata company against all claims for damages, loss, injury or death arising from the use of CP29 by having the appropriate public liability insurance in place for CP29.
24.EXEMPTIONS FOR LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12
(1)In accordance with section 42B of the Act, the proprietors of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 are exempt from contributing to any costs associated with the insurance, ongoing use, upkeep and repair and maintenance of CP28 and CP29. This exemption applies to the common lighting, road sweeps and common property insurances.
(2)The proprietors of all lots within the survey-strata scheme will contribute towards the funding of the strata management fees calculated in the proportion that the unit entitlement of each respective lot bears to the aggregate of the unit entitlement of all lots.
25.LEVY CALCULATIONS FOR LOTS SHARING USE OF CP28 AND CP29
(1)The proprietors of lots 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 shall bear the associated costs relating to the insurance, ongoing use, maintenance and upkeep in respect of CP28 and CP29 respectively.
(2)These costs shall be funded by levying contributions on the proprietors of the above lots respectively, calculated in proportion to the unit entitlement each respective lot bears to the aggregate unit entitlements of those lots only.
26.LEVY DUE DATES
(1)Levy contributions shall be deemed to have been levied under Section 36(1), be due and payable on or before the first day of the second month after an invoice for the contribution has been levied on the proprietor and in addition to any other contributions levied under Section 36.
(2)Where an order made under Section 99A of the Act is in force, contributions shall be levied in accordance with that order to the extent that it is inconsistent with this by-law.
The above by-laws were in force under the Prior Act. Schedule 5 to the ST Act provides transitional provisions for the Amending Act, including in relation to the by-laws that were in force immediately before the commencement of the ST Act. Relevantly, cl 4 of Sch 5 to the ST Act provides:
4.Scheme by-laws
(1)The by-laws (including any management statement) of a strata company as in force immediately before commencement day continue in force, subject to this Act, as scheme by-laws as if they had been made as governance by-laws or as conduct by-laws according to the classification into which they would fall if they had been made on commencement day.
(2)However, all by-laws that are in force immediately before commencement day in the terms set out in Schedule 1 clauses 11 to 15 or Schedule 2 clause 5, as then in force are taken to be repealed on commencement day.
(3)A by-law under s 42(8) as in force immediately before commencement day is taken to be an exclusive use bylaw subject to this Act[.]

Principles in exercising the Tribunal's discretion to make an order

The power of the Tribunal to make order under s 200(1) of the ST Act to resolve the dispute or proceeding is a statutory discretionary power.
In Efficient Building Team Pty Ltd and Perth Recruitment Services Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 25 at [34] to [43] the Tribunal's statutory discretionary power was explained as follows:
34The term 'discretion' was explained in Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [200] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194 at [19] as follows:
'Discretion' … refers to a decision-making process in which "no one [consideration] and no combination of [considerations] is necessarily determinative of the result".  Rather, the decision-maker is allowed some latitude as to the choice of the decision to be made.  The latitude may be considerable … [or] it may be quite narrow[.]
35…
36… However, that is not to say that the statutory power is not without limitation.  As stated by French CJ in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li[2013] HCA 18 (Li) at [23] every statutory discretion, however broad, is constrained by law.
37Legal reasonableness provides the boundaries within which a decision-maker such as the Tribunal has a genuine free discretion:  Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (NSW) v Browning (1947) 74 CLR 492 at [505 and Li at [23]. To determine the boundaries of the statutory discretionary power, regard must be had to the scope, subject matter and purpose of the statutory scheme that creates and confers on the Tribunal a discretion to make an order: Li at [67].
38The scope and purpose of the ST Act provides limits on the exercise of the statutory power by the Tribunal. By its long title, the ST Act is to provide for, among other related purposes, for the subdivision of land by strata titles schemes, the creation of strata titles and the governance and operation of strata titles schemes.
…
41Importantly, in exercising its statutory powers, the Tribunal must do so reasonably:  Li at [23]. The same was said in the earlier decision of Kruger & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia (1997) 190 CLR 1 where Brennan CJ stated at [36]:
[W]hen a discretionary power is statutorily confined on a repository, the power must be exercised reasonably, for the legislature is taken to intend that the discretion be so exercised[.]
42In other words, the statutory discretionary power is subject to the presumption of law that the legislature intends the power to be exercised reasonably…
43… [T]he Tribunal in making its decision as to whether or not to exercise its statutory discretionary power to make an order, must ultimately take all considerations into account.
I will apply the above principles in determining whether or not to exercise the Tribunal's statutory discretionary power under s 200(1) of the ST Act to make an order in these proceedings.
Next, I set out the factual background before considering the issues.

Factual background

Here, there is no question about the facts.
On the basis of the materials before the Tribunal, I make the following findings of fact:
(1)The applicants are the joint owners of Lot 3 on the survey-strata plan.
(2)The minutes of the first AGM held on 23 July 2014 record that the strata company resolved to appoint WA Strata Management as its strata manager with an annual fee of $3,000. Further, the minutes record that strata company resolved that the contributions falling due after 31 May 2014 shall be for the 'Admin Levy' (Lots 7, 8, 13-27 only) of $0.85 per unit entitlement and the contributions for all lots to be $1.32 per unit entitlement with the levies to be invoiced quarterly, due on and payable in advance on or before the first day of each August, November, February and May.
(3)The applicants were levied a quarterly 'Operating Levy' of $43.56 (which equates to an annual amount payable of $174.24). The contribution was due on or before 1 July August 2014.
(4)The minutes of the second AGM held on 22 July 2015 record the reappointment of WA Strata Management as the strata manager. A similar resolution to that set out above for the first AGM was passed.
(5)The applicants were levied a quarterly 'Operating Levy' of $43.56. The contribution was due on or before 1 August 2015.
(6)The minutes of the third AGM held on 23 July 2016 record the reappointment of WA Strata Management as the strata manager for two years with an increase of 4% in the strata management fee after 12 months. Mr McDonald was elected to council. A similar resolution to that set out above for the first AGM was passed.
(7)The applicants were levied a quarterly 'Operating Levy' of $43.56. The contribution was due on or before 1 August 2016.
(8)The minutes of the fourth AGM held on 15 August 2017 record the continuation of WA Strata Management as the strata manager. Mr McDonald was elected to council. It was resolved that the quarterly contribution be $4 per unit entitlement until otherwise resolved and the administration contribution be paid quarterly with the first instalment due on 1 November 2017.
(9)The applicants were levied a quarterly 'Admin Fund' contribution of $33.00. The contribution was due on or before 1 August 2017.
(10)The minutes of 15 August 2017 record the following task for the strata manager:
D.STREET LIGHTS
The consensus of the meeting was for WA Strata to arrange for the street lighting to come on at 5:15am and switch off at 5:40am and back on when it is dark and turn off at 9 pm for Autumn and Winter and then for the electrician to attend and adjust the sensor to only come on at night for Summer and Spring[.]
(11)The minutes of the fifth AGM held on 25 July 2018 record the continuation of WA Strata Management as the strata manager for a further two years from 25 July 2018 to 25 July 2020.
(12)In regards to contributions, the minutes reflect that until otherwise resolved the 'admin' contribution remain the same and is to be paid quarterly, the first such instalment being due on 1 November 2018.
(13)The applicants were levied a quarterly contribution for the 'Admin Fund' of $33.00. The contribution was due on or before 1 November 2018.
(14)The minutes of 25 July 2018 record the following tasks for the strata manager:
A.AWNING LOT 3 - 77 CAMDEN WAY
The consensus of the meeting was for WA Strata to send a letter to the owner of Lot 3 to inform them of their responsibilities should the common property fence be damaged due to the awning being attached.
B.PARKING BAY CP2 ON TRALEE
John Ioppolo suggested putting in a parking bay under the street light adjacent to the fence near 1 Tralee Place to help with the sale of this unit. WA Strata will seek approval from Lot 8 and 18 prior to a request being submitted to the local Council.
(15)The minutes of the sixth AGM held on 7 August 2019 record that that contributions to be levied are to remain the same.
(16)The applicants were levied a quarterly 'Admin Fund' contribution of $33.00. The contribution was due on or before 1 November 2019.
(17)The minutes of the seventh AGM held on 6 August 2020 record that WA Strata Management was reappointed as strata manager for a period of two years. The minutes also record that until otherwise resolved the 'management fee admin' contributions are to be paid quarterly, the first such instalment being due on 1 November 2020.
(18)The applicants were levied the quarterly 'Admin Fund' contribution of $30.90. The contribution was due on or before 1 November 2020.
(19)The minutes of 6 August 2020 record the following tasks for the strata manager:
C.BY-LAW NON COMPLIANCE
The process for dealing with occupiers who are not complying with the strata by-laws is as follows:
-Owners are to contact WA Strata to inform of the breach of by-law
-WA Strata is to forward this information onto the Council of Owners
-WA Strata is to forward the breach notice onto the Owner and Property Manager if necessary.
…
E.DEBT COLLECTION PROCESS
WA Strata has 3 Stages of the debt collection process
…
At each state in the debt collection process WA Strata has a procedure that is followed.
…
H.CRACKING BITUMEN
The Owners present discussed the cracking soak wells throughout the common areas of the complex. It was decided that WA Strata is to issue a quote to request to have this rectified[.]
…
(20)The minutes of the eighth AGM held on 5 August 2021 record that WA Strata Management was reappointed as strata manager for a period of two years from 6 August 2020. The minutes also record that until otherwise resolved the 'administration fee levy' contribution is to be paid quarterly, the first such instalment being due on 1 November 2021.
(21)The applicants were levied the quarterly 'Admin Fund' contribution of $33.00. The contribution was due on or before 1 November 2021.
(22)The minutes of 5 August 2021 recorded the following tasks for the strata manager:
10GENERAL BUSINESS
C.NO THROUGH ROAD
It was decided that WA Strata Management is to approach the City of Mandurah to request the installation of 'No Through Road' signs at the complex.
11MATTERS WITHOUT NOTICE FOR CONSIDERATION AND REFERRAL TO STRATA COUNCIL (DISCUSSION ONLY)
LIGHTING
… WA Strata Management is to contact Peel Electrical Services to rectify. WA Strata Management is to also engage the same contractor to check the main electrical distribution board door seal for wear and the condition of it due to aging[.]
(23)The minutes of the nineth AGM held on 4 August 2022 record that WA Strata Management was reappointed as strata manager for a period of two years from 6 August 2022 and that it 'will automatically roll on a successive term' unless otherwise resolved by the council. The minutes also record that until otherwise resolved the 'administration fee levy' contribution is to be paid quarterly, the first such instalment being due on 1 November 2022.
(24)The applicants were levied the quarterly 'Admin Fund' contribution of $33.00. The contribution was due on or before 1 November 2022.
(25)The minutes of 4 August 2022 recorded the following tasks for the strata manager:
7INSURANCE COVERS:
… [T]he Strata Company authorise WA Strata Management to renew the insurance with CHU Underwriting Agency for the period 20/05/2023 - 20/05/2024 at the suggested cover offered by the insurer[.]
(26)An Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was held on 27 March 2024. The following proposed resolution put to the EGM was not passed:
…
That by a Resolution Without Dissent the Strata Company agrees to amend by-law 24(2) so that Lot 3 be excluded from contributing towards the funding of the strata management fees.
The current by-law 24(2) states:
The proprietors of all lots within the survey-strata scheme will contribute towards the funding of the strata management fees calculated in the proportion that the unit entitlement of each respective lot bears to the aggregate of the unit entitlements of all lots.
The amended by-law 24(2) would state:
The proprietors of all lots, with the exemption of Lot 3, within the survey-strata scheme will contribute towards the funding of the strata management fees calculated in the proportion that the unit entitlement of each respective lot bears to the aggregate of the unit entitlements of all lots[.]
(27)The applicants attended the EGM but left before the voting on the above resolution was completed.
(28)The minutes of the EGM record the following tasks for the strata manager:
3.Expenditure Budget Proposed Resolution: Administrative Fund Levy - All Owners
… Emerson Raine, [strata manager] is instructed to provide an expenditure account, to be tabled at the next scheduled AGM, which shows the costs to the strata company[.]
(29)The document titled 'Schedule A – Agreed Services' sets out the services, including community services, financial management, insurance services, legal, scheme plan and by-laws, meetings and resolutions, property and records and correspondence services which the strata manager agrees to provide to the strata company.

Next, the contentions of each party are set out in summary.

Parties' contentions

The applicants' contentions may be summarised as follows:
(a)They were the second buyers in the survey-strata scheme. The first set of by-laws that they were given stated that they had access to and were allowed to use the common property. However, the second set of by-laws that they were given, which they signed without reading them, provided that they had no access to, and were not allowed to use the common property marked 'CP28' and 'CP29' on the survey-strata plan. It is because they have no access to 'CP28' and 'CP29' that they and the Camden Lots are exempt under Sch 1 by-law 24(1) from paying any contribution towards the costs of insurance, ongoing use, maintenance and upkeep of the common property areas of CP28 and CP29.
(b)Lot 3 is completely separate from the lots, whose owners have access to, and use 'CP28' and 'CP29'.
(c)When they first moved to their Lot 3, the developer, Mr John Ioppolo told them that they would get an account from the strata manager, WA Strata Management, (now Emerson Raine) for water and electricity usage as Mr Ioppolo would read the main meter for both water and electricity as well as read all the submeters then send the readings to the strata manager whose job was to issue to each lot owner an account for water and electricity usage.
(d)There is a main meter box from which electricity is supplied to the survey-strata scheme. The purpose of that meter box is to charge the strata company for electricity usage by the common property areas 'CP28' and 'CP29'. In regards to their Lot 3, Synergy reads their electricity sub-meter and issues the electricity consumption account directly to them.
(e)They also have a water sub-meter and are billed directly by the Water Corporation for their water consumption.
(f)They strata manager and council have used different terms such as 'fees', 'levies', 'admin fee', and 'strata management fees' over the years. They are all a disguise to raise money for the strata manager who does nothing in return.
(g)The strata manager refuses to sit down with them to explain what the 'strata management fees' are for other than to say they do not set the fees; rather the council sets the strata management fees. Most recently, the strata manager (Emerson Raine) have told them that the 'strata management fees' are for 'administration'.
(h)When asked what the strata manager does for these 'strata management fees' they were told the strata manager sends out documents concerning the AGM. In response, they told the strata manager to stop sending out those documents. They also asked the strata manager to take them off the list (strata roll) which was refused. The end result is they are still being levied the quarterly contribution, but the strata manager is providing absolutely no services.
(i)The Royal Commission in banking found that some banks where charging clients fees but without providing any services. The result was that those banks were fined millions of dollars. The same applies to this strata complex. That is, the strata manager is charging them strata management fees but without providing any services.
(j)The strata company would not be out of pocket if they were not required to pay the quarterly contribution because the strata manager is not doing anything to earn the current charges. In other words, what is happening in this strata complex is purely a 'greedy money grab' for no services provided by the strata manager.
(k)The quarterly contribution is unreasonable, unwarranted, unfair, discriminatory and oppressive for all the owners of the Camden Lots. By-law 24(2) is invalid under s 46(j) of the ST Act. Neither they nor the strata company receive anything for the quarterly contribution.
(l)At the AGMs a set of financials is put to the meeting and the members are asked to vote. The financials are put together by the strata manager. The meeting has always accepted the figures without change.
(m)In the past 10 years the strata manager has made about $15,000 from the quarterly contribution paid by the owners of the Camden Lots.
(n)Since 2018, they have not paid the quarterly contribution.
The contentions of the strata company's may be summarised as follows:
(a)They do not agree with the application to amend Sch 1 bylaw 24(2) whereby either the applicants or all the Camden Lots (10 lots) are not required to pay the quarterly contribution.
(b)The applicants have no authority from the owners of the Camden Lots to represent them in these proceedings.
(c)The quarterly contribution is the strata management fee charged to all lot owners under Sch 1 by-law 24(2) by reference to unit entitlement. The by-laws were drafted by CS Legal in 2014.
(d)While the applicants' Lot 3 is a separate lot, all the lots in the strata complex are linked by infrastructure services.
(e)The applicants' Certificate of Title for Lot 3 shows they have part ownership of the common property.
(f)While Mr McDonald attended the AGM on 9 August 2023, he did not put forward any motion regarding the quarterly contribution for the strata management fees.
(g)The minutes of the first AGM held on 23 July 2014 record that a resolution was passed appointing WA Strata Management as the strata manager. Further, it was resolved that the budget be funded by levying contributions on the owners. The contributions were split into two levies which were apportioned in accordance with the Schedule of Unit Entitlements on the survey-strata plan. The minutes reflect:
•administration levy - lots 7, 8, 13 to 27 (these lots have exclusive use of either CP28 or CP29); and
•operating levy - all.
(h)The minutes of the second AGM held on 22 July 2015 reflected the same resolution regarding levies. That is:
•administration levy - lots 7, 8, 13 to 27 (these lots have exclusive use of either CP28 or CP29); and
•operating levy - all.
(i)Mr McDonald was elected to the council at the second AGM. He did not object to, or query the quarterly contribution.
(j)The minutes of the third AGM held on 23 July 2016 reflect the same resolution regarding levies. However, the name of the levy was changed so that all levies due appeared under the heading 'Admin Fund'. The minutes reflect:
LEVY CONTRIBUTION:
Resolved (Ross Mathewson, Denis [sic] McDonald) that the quarterly contribution and special levy remains the same and the Admin contributions be paid. Quarterly, the first such instalment being due on 1/08/2016 and subsequent instalments being due on the first day of 1/11/2016, 1/02/2017, 1/05/2017.
(k)The approved budget in the minutes of 23 July 2016 is grouped under the heading 'Admin Fund' with two separate streams of revenue:
•Levies Due (Special) - Admin; and
•Levies Due - Admin.
(l)They accept that the heading 'Admin fee' as used in the minutes is difficult to understand and may be misleading.
(m)The minutes of the fourth AGM held on 15 August 2017 reflect the same levy structure was approved with all levies being under the heading 'Admin Fund'.
(n)The minutes of subsequent AGMs for each of 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 reflect the same levy structure was approved.
(o)The amount raised by the levies is as follows:

Year

Strata Management Fees (strata manager)

Total raised

2014

$3,000

$5,280

2015

$3,500

$5,280

2016

$3,300

$5,280

2017

$3,632

$4,000

2018

$3,534

$4,000

2019

$3,534

$4,000

2020

$3,641

$3,741

2021

$3,641

$3,741

2022

$3,641

$3,741

2023

$3,713

$3,741

(a)The council have continued with the levy structure set up by the developer in 2014. The 'strata management fees' of $3,000 per annum (increasing to $3,713 in 2023) for the survey-strata complex comprised of 27 lots is not excessive. The applicants are currently required to pay a quarterly contribution of $30.85 (which totals $123.40 for the year) based on their unit entitlement of 33 units. This is not excessive or unreasonable.
(b)By-law 24(2) serves the interests of all the owners as it requires all owners to contribute towards the 'strata management fees' (column two in the table above) calculated in the proportion to their unit entitlement.
(c)The Water Corporation does not carry out a 'back flow'. Rather the Water Corporation[4] informs the strata company when the back flow is due and it is the strata manager who arranges this. Most recently, Tunnel Vision (WA) Pty Ltd carried out this service on 23 January 2023 for $242.[5] Further, Spades Plumbing & Gas provided a 'Blackflow Prevention Test' report addressed to WA Strata Management for the strata complex. The report is dated 13 January 2023.[6]
(d)They accept that no water is used on the common property areas CP28 or CP29.
(e)The Water Corporation owns the Master Meter and the strata company is responsible for all water lost between the Master Meter and each sub-meter. On 7 April 2021, the strata manager received an invoice from the Water Corporation for $85.87 for 'Common - Residential at Camden Way Meadow Springs Lot 1313 Strata lot 1-27'.[7] In late 2020 there was a water leak in Galveston Court in the pipework between the Master Meter and a sub-meter. As the pipework was part of the survey-strata plan, the strata company had to engage a plumber to undertake the repair works. The strata manager was informed that the main control valve had to be turned off during the repair works and when it would be reconnected.
(f)All lots, including Lot 3, within the survey-strata complex get their electricity supply from the main electricity board.[8] The main electricity board supplies electricity to the green electrical domes located around the strata complex. The strata company is responsible for the maintenance of the main electricity board. In 2021,[9] one of the green electricity domes was damaged by a driver of a Ute who used one of the driveways to turn the Ute around resulting in live wires being exposed. Western Power were called out but all they could do was make the dome safe. The repair works to the common property had to be arranged by the strata manager. When electricity is turned off at the main electricity board, the electricity is turned off to all the lots. That occurred in 2021 when the electrical contractor was engaged to repair the damage to the green electricity dome.
(g)An electrician from Peel Electrical recently inspected the strata complex's main electricity board on 19 January 2024 and stated the electrical supply to Lot 3 was controlled by the main electricity board and if the electricity supply was turned off at the main electricity board then the electricity supply for all the lots in the survey-strata complex would be turned off.
(h)If Lot 3 was exempted from the quarterly contribution, then all the other owners would be required to make good the shortfall leading to an increase in the other owners' contribution for the strata management fees. This is unfairly discriminatory against the other owners.
(i)The quarterly contribution goes towards enforcing the scheme by-laws as well as the infrastructure for the supply of water and electrical services. If Lot 3 was exempted from the quarterly contribution, the applicants would receive these services free of charge which is unfair as compared with the other owners.
(j)An EGM was held on 27 March 2024 to consider the applicants' proposed resolution to amend by-law 24(2) to exclude the owners of Lot 3 from paying the quarterly contribution. The resolution failed as nine of the lot owners attending the EGM voted against the proposal.
[4] HB at page 224.
[5] HB at page 225.
[6] HB at page 226.
[7] HB at pages 227 to 228.
[8] HB at page 232.
[9] HB at page 210.

I now turn to address in turn each of the issues set out above at [20].

Consideration

Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute?

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal was not challenged by either party. However, and in any event, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under s 197(4) of the ST Act to determine the dispute or the proceeding.
The dispute in this case between the applicants and the strata company concerns whether the applicants should be exempt from paying the quarterly contribution. There is also a dispute as to the validity of bylaw 24(2). These disputes are the 'scheme dispute' to be determined under s 197(4) of the ST Act.
The applicants and the strata company as 'scheme participants' as that term is defined in s 197(2) of the ST Act. This is because the applicants are the owners of Lot 3 in the relevant survey-strata scheme and the strata company is expressly listed as a scheme participant in s 197(2) of the ST Act.
Finally, I am satisfied that the Tribunal may make any order it considers appropriate to resolve the scheme dispute or proceeding (s 200 of the ST Act). I will return to the Tribunal's discretionary statutory power to make orders later in these reasons.

Whether the strata company is required to determine amounts to be raised for payment into the administrative fund?

The functions of the strata company are set out in Div 1 of Pt 8 of the ST Act. Relevant to these proceedings, under s 100(1)(a) of the ST Act, is the requirement for the strata company to establish a fund (an administrative fund) for the control and management of the common property, for the payment of any premiums of insurance and for the discharge of any other obligations of the strata company.
As the survey-strata plan was registered prior to the amendments to the ST Act on 1 May 2020, the following provisions in cl 23 of Sch 5 to the ST Act apply:
23.Financial management
(1)An administrative fund of a strata company established under section 36 as in force immediately before commencement day is taken to be an administrative fund established under section 100.
…
(3)Contributions or other arrangements determined under section 36 as in force immediately before commencement day for any period that continues on or after commencement day for any period that continues on or after commencement day are taken to be contributions or arrangements determined under section 100[.]
The effect of the above provisions is that the administration fund established under s 36 of the Prior Act is taken to be an administrative fund under s 100 of the ST Act and that contributions or other arrangements in place under s 36 of the Prior Act are taken to be contributions or arrangements under the s 100 of the ST Act.
Once the administrative fund is established by the strata company, it must then determine the amounts to be raised for payment by the owners into the administrative fund (s 100(1)(b) of the ST Act).
In conclusion, the strata company is required to determine amounts to be raised for payment into the administration fund. It is important that the strata company identifies its costs and expenses, properly budgets for them and then levies contributions appropriately and in accordance with the ST Act for those costs and expenses.

Whether the strata company may levy contributions on owners of lots otherwise than in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective lots?

How a strata company is to levy contributions on the owners is expressly stated in s 100(1)(c) of the ST Act. That provision provides that the strata company must levy contributions on the owners as follows:
(a)in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective lots; or
(b)in accordance with any by-law(s) of the strata scheme that provide for a different basis for levying contributions.
The consequence in this case is that the strata company must levy contributions on the owners in proportion to the unit entitlement as set out on the survey-strata plan (Form 3) because it is common ground that by-law 24(2) (see above at [61]), does not provide for a different basis for levying contributions in relation to the quarterly contribution.
It is therefore incumbent on the strata company in performing its functions under the ST Act to comply with s 100(1)(c) of the ST Act in respect of levying the quarterly contribution.

Whether by-law 24(2) is invalid?

Relying on s 46(j)(i) and (ii) of the ST Act, the applicants challenge the validity of by-law 24(2).
In properly construing by-law 24(2), it is necessary to consider the language of the by-law, viewed in the statutory context in which it was made, and while recourse to surrounding circumstances may be permissible as an aid to construction, it is necessary, particularly bearing in mind the public purpose of by-laws (as by-laws go beyond facilitating the internal administration of the strata company and third parties who ordinarily would not have access to the scheme by-laws may inspect them), to exercise caution in going beyond the language of the by-law itself and its statutory context.
It is useful to restate by-law 24(2). It provides:
(2)The proprietors of all lots within the survey-strata scheme will contribute towards the funding of the strata management fees calculated in the proportion that the unit entitlement of each respective lot bears to the aggregate of the unit entitlement of all lots.

Proper construction of by-law 24(2)

By-law 24(2) was made pursuant to Div 4 of Part 4 of the ST Act. Division 4 is headed 'Scheme by-laws' and Part 4 is headed 'Scheme documents'.
The management statement which contains the by-laws was executed by two people: Mr John Ioppolo, the sole director of the original owner and the authorised representative of the bank which had a registered interest in the land the subject of the strata plan.
The legislative framework or statutory context of s 44 of the ST Act which concerns the making of by-laws is that s 44(1) of the ST Act (as did s 42 of the Prior Act) enables the strata company, by resolution of the strata company, to make by-laws for the strata scheme provided they are not inconsistent with the ST Act.
Section 42 of the Prior Act enabled the strata company to make bylaws for its corporate affairs, any matter specified in Schedule 2A (matters that may be provided for in the management statement) and other matters relating to the management, control, use and enjoyment of the lots and any common property.
The amendment to the language now found in s 44(1) and s 44(2) of the ST Act provide for 'governance' by-laws and 'conduct' by-laws. While s 44 of the ST Act allocates into two categories the powers of the strata company to make by-laws set out s 42 of the Prior Act, such categorisation is not intended, in my view, to alter or widen those powers.
By-laws that deal with the governance of the strata scheme and which include a by-law dealing with contributions, levies or moneys payable by the owner of a lot to the strata company are governance bylaws (per the definition of governance by-laws in s 3 of the ST Act).
In summary, s 44 of the ST Act, along with the predecessor provision under the Prior Act, enables a strata company to make by-laws that are not inconsistent with the ST Act.
In conclusion, the ordinary and natural meaning of the words of bylaw 24(2), when considered in the context of Div 4 of Part 4 of the ST Act, is that the strata company may make governance by-laws requiring owners to contribute (or pay moneys) to the strata company in respect of the fees charged by the strata manager who is engaged by the strata company to provide services to the strata company which relates to the management, control, use and enjoyment of the lots and any common property.

This construction of by-law 24(2) is, in my view, consistent with s 44 of the ST Act along with s 100(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the ST Act which requires the strata company to establish an administrative fund for various administrative expenses, determine the amounts to be raised for payment into the administrative fund and to raise the amounts so determined by levying contributions on owners in proportion to the unit entitlement of their respective lot (as by-law 24(2) does not provide for a different basis for levying contributions).

Is by-law 24(2) invalid?

Bearing in mind the proper construction of by-law 24(2), as set out above, and having regard to the interest of all of the owners in the strata scheme in the use and enjoyment of their lots and the common property, I now turn to consider if by-law 24(2) is unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against one or more owners or that the bylaw is oppressive or unreasonable as strongly asserted by the applicants.
The applicants' position is that by-law 24(2) is prejudicial, discriminatory, oppressive and unreasonable. This is because, according to the applicants, their Lot 3 (and the other Camden Lots) is separate from any of the other lots in the strata complex that have access to and are allowed to use the common property areas 'CP28' and 'CP29'. Further, the applicants contend that it is wrong that the strata manager gets to take money from them when the strata manager does nothing for the money taken. The applicants say what the strata company and strata manager are doing is nothing more than a 'money grab'.
With respect, I do not accept the applicants' position that the bylaw 24(2) is invalid by application of s 46(j)(i) or (ii) of the ST Act. The reasons for this are as follows.
The strata company levies the quarterly contribution on all owners pursuant to s 100 of the ST Act. As already explained, the strata company is obliged to set up an administrative fund and then to determine the amount to be raised for payment into the administrative fund. The amount to be raised is to cover the administrative expenses for the strata company to control and manage the common property, for the payment of any insurance premiums and to discharge any other obligation of the strata company.
The strata company has many functions or duties under the ST Act. Those functions include keeping proper accounting records of its income and expenses, preparing a budget for each financial year, preparing and maintaining a strata roll and enforcing compliance with scheme by-laws. In order to carry out its functions under the ST Act, the strata company may engage or employ a strata manager to assist the council (which is the governing body comprised of elected members of the strata company). This does not remove the need for a council. Rather, it may increase the need for a council, to make sure the strata manager is doing what instructed.
In this case, the strata company has engaged or employed a strata manager.
A copy of the strata management contract is not before the Tribunal apart from the document headed 'Schedule A - Agreed Services'[10] which Mr Mylotte explained was part of the strata management contract with their strata manager, Emerson Raine. In that document the following seven services are listed:
(a)community services;
(b)financial management;
(c)insurance services;
(d)legal, scheme plan and by-laws;
(e)meetings and resolutions;
(f)property; and
(g)records and correspondence.
[10] HB at pages 452 to 454.
While Mr Mylotte nor Mr Powell were not able clearly and fully articulate the services provided by the strata manager to the strata company, I accept that the strata manager has had in the past and continues to provide various services to the strata company as evidenced by the minutes of the AGMs. These services include:
(a)the strata manager being requested to write to the applicants to inform them of their responsibilities should the common property fence be damaged due to the awning being attached (minutes of AGM held on 25 July 2018);
(b)the strata manager being requested to seek approval from the owners of Lots 8 and 18 prior to a request being submitted to the local council to put a parking bay near 1 Tralee Place (minutes of AGM held on 25 July 2018);
(c)the strata manager being instructed to forward information received of by-law breaches to the council and to forward the breach notice to the owner and property manager if necessary (minutes of AGM held on 6 August 2020);
(d)the strata manager being instructed to take three steps in collecting debts (minutes of AGM held on 6 August 2020);
(e)the strata manager being requested to obtain a quote to have the cracking soak wells throughout the common areas rectified (minutes of AGM held on 6 August 2020);
(f)the strata manager being requested to approach the City of Mandurah to request the installation of 'No Through Road' signs at the strata complex (minutes of AGM held on 5 August 2021);
(g)the strata manager being requested to contact Peel Electrical Services to check the main electrical distribution board door seal for wear and the condition of it due to aging (minutes of AGM held on 5 August 2021); and
(h)the strata manager being requested to renew the insurance with CHU Underwriting Agency (minutes of AGM held on 4 August 2022).
Some of the services provided by the strata manager, as set out above, only concern the common property areas 'CP28' and 'CP29'. Other services concern the whole strata complex, such as information to be forwarded by the strata manager to the council when it comes to their attention that there is an alleged breach of a by-law. Another service that concerns the whole strata complex is the steps to be taken by the strata manager to recover debts.
It is common ground that the strata company holds meetings (for example, AGMs). The minutes reflect that a representative from the strata manager attends the meeting and often chairs those meetings. The document 'Schedule A - Agreed Services' requires the strata manager to prepare and distribute notices of the AGMs with supporting documents including the statement of accounts and proposed budget as well as prepare and distribute the minutes of AGS.
The document 'Schedule A - Agreed Services' also requires the strata manager, amongst other things, to:
(a)prepare and maintain the strata roll;
(b)maintain records and documents of the strata company as required by the ST Act and the Strata Titles (General) Regulations 2019 (WA);
(c)attend to routine correspondence and communication; and
(d)refer to council, where requested by council or considered necessary or appropriate by the strata manager, correspondence, enquiries, complaints and requests for information from owners, occupiers and third parties.
It may be that the applicants have not observed the strata manager undertaking duties for the strata company or that the duties undertaken by the strata manager do not directly involve or affect them. Further, or alternatively, it may be that the applicants do not think they are 'getting value for money' from the strata manager's services. However, in my view, none of these matters or concerns justify the applicants' contention that by-law 24(2) is invalid by application s 46(j)(i) and s 46(j)(ii) of the ST Act.
Having said that, it appears that at least some of the services provided by the strata manager for which the strata manager charges the strata company a fee pertain only to provision of services to the common property areas 'CP28' and 'CP29'. For example, the requirement for the strata manager to obtain a quote to have the cracking soak wells throughout the common property areas rectified as detailed in the minutes of AGM held on 6 August 2020. The soak wells on the common property areas 'CP28' and 'CP29' have nothing to do with the Camden Lots and therefore it may be appropriate that the portion of the strata management fees resulting from the obtaining of a quote for the cracking soak wells and any associated costs, such as discussion with relevant trades persons and payment of the account not be charged to the Camden Lots which cannot access the common property areas 'CP28' and 'CP29'.
In the material before the Tribunal, there does not appear to be any breakdown of the strata management fees to reflect the strata manager services provided by the strata manager for each of the Camden Way Lots, or the Galveston Court Lots or the Tralee Place Lots and services provided by the strata manager for all the lots (such as maintaining records and documents for the strata company as required by the ST Act).
Having regards to the interest of all the owners and bearing in mind the services provided by the strata manager, as set out earlier, I am not satisfied that by-law 24(2) is unfairly prejudicial to, or discriminatory against the applicants. Further, in view of the quarterly contribution amount ($33) for services provided by the strata manger, I am not satisfied that by-law 24(2) is oppressive or unreasonable.
At the EGM on 27 March 2024 the following proposed resolution to amend by-law 24(2) was put to the meeting:
The proprietors of all lots, with the exception of Lot 3, within the survey-strata scheme will contribute towards the funding of the strata management fees calculated in the proportion that the unit entitlement of each respective lot bears to the aggregate of the unit entitlement for all lots.
The proposed change to by-law 24(2) is the addition of the words 'with the exception of Lot 3' as highlighted above.
Following what is described in the minutes of the EGM as a 'general heated discussion' covering matters about the proposed amendment to by-law 24(2), a vote was held with the result that nine of the owners present voted against the proposed resolution. The minutes also record that the applicants left the meeting before the vote was held.
While the applicants were concerned that it was costing all the owners to hold the EGM, because they had already filed their application with the Tribunal, it is informative, in my view, that of the ten owners present at the EGM, all of the owners apart from the applicants, voted against the proposed change to by-law 24(2) to exempt the applicants (being the owners of Lot 3) from paying the quarterly contribution.
Finally, there is nothing in the ST Act which excludes an owner, such as the applicants, who purchased Lot 3, from complying with the requirements of the ST Act including paying contributions levied by the strata company under the ST Act. Similarly, there is nothing in the ST Act which excludes a strata company from its obligations under the ST Act including the establishment of an administrative fund then determining the amounts to be raised for payment into that fund and raising the amounts so determined by levying contributions on the owners in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective lots (or a different basis if so provided by a by-law).
Going forward, the strata company may want to consider when negotiating the strata manager's contract and the amount payable for strata management fees, whether a different breakdown for the quarterly contribution between the Camden Way Lots, the Galveston Court Lots and the Tralee Place Lots would be appropriate. If the strata company decides a different breakdown for strata management fees is required, then an appropriate by-law (or amendment to by-law 24(2)) registered on the survey-strata plan by the Register of Titles will be required in order for the strata company to levy contribution on owners other than in proportion to the unit entitlements. This is because, as previously explained, s 100(1)(c) of the ST Act provides the basis for levying contributions and if there is not a by-law which provides for a different basis, then the strata company must levy contributions on the owners in proportion to the unit entitlement of their respective lots.
In conclusion, in my view by-law 24(2) is not invalid including by reason of s 46(j)(i) and (ii) of the ST Act. In this case, the strata company must levy contributions on owners in accordance with s 100(1)(c) of the ST Act. However, going forward it is open for the strata company to levy contributions on owners otherwise than in proportion to the unit entitlement, provided the requirements of the ST Act are satisfied which includes registering a by-law which provides for a different basis.

Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to make an order exempting the owner of Lot 3 from the requirements of Sch 1 bylaw 24(2)?

Section 200(1) of the ST Act provides that the Tribunal may make an order it considers appropriate to resolve the dispute or proceeding. The precondition which enlivens the discretion conferred on the Tribunal to make an order under s 200(1) of the ST Act is that the Tribunal must be satisfied there is a dispute or proceeding. Earlier, I determined that there is a scheme dispute between the applicants, as the joint owners of Lot 3, and the strata company as to the quarterly contribution and whether bylaw 24(2) is invalid.
The discretion conferred by s 200(1) of the ST Act to make an order is not limited by any mandatory considerations. However, that is not to say that the statutory power is not without limitation. To determine the boundaries of the statutory discretionary power, regard must be had to the scope, subject matter and purpose of the statutory scheme that creates and confers on the Tribunal a discretion to make an order to resolve a dispute or proceeding.
The scope and purpose of the ST Act provides limits on the exercise of the statutory power by the Tribunal. By its Long title, the ST Act is to provide for, among other related purposes, for the subdivision of land by strata titles schemes, the creation of strata titles and the governance and operation of strata titles schemes.
Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal's statutory task, as revealed by a consideration of the ST Act as a whole and, in particular, s 200(1) of the ST Act is that if the Tribunal finds that there is a scheme dispute then the Tribunal may make an order on the application, in this case by the applicants as the joint owners Lot 3, to resolve the scheme dispute or proceeding.
The Tribunal's statutory discretionary power is subject to the presumption of law that the legislature intends the power to be exercised reasonably. Section 200(1) of the ST Act is to be construed accordingly.
I now turn to consider whether this is a case in which to exercise the Tribunal's statutory discretionary power to make an order to resolve the scheme dispute about the strata management fees.
The following is an extract from the 'Levy Notice' issues by the strata company to the applicants on 2 January 2024:
LEVY NOTICE
Notice is hereby given by the proprietors of Strata Plan 66901 pursuant to Section 100 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 that the following contributions are due.
…

Due Date

Details

Admin Due

Reserve Due

Paid

Int Paid

Int Due

Total Due

01/02/2024

Standard Levy All Owners (01/02/24 - 30/04/24)

$30.85

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$30.85

Lot credit -

Total if Paid by Due Date$30.85

No GST has been charged

$30.85

In short, the applicants under the above 'Levy Notice' are required to pay a quarterly contribution of $30.85 to the strata company. It is common ground that the quarterly contribution is for strata management fees.
I do not accept the applicants' assertion that the quarterly contribution levied by the strata company is a guise for money, or more simply, a 'money grab'. As explained earlier, the strata manager provides various services to the strata company (see for example above at [106] to [107]). Whether the quarterly contribution should be levied on owners other than in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective lots, that, in my view, is for the strata company to determine. This is because the management of the strata company is best left to the strata company and that the Tribunal should not too readily impose its own views: Hopkins and Clayton [2007] WASAT 255.

Objectives of the strata company

I now turn to consider s 119 of the ST Act which requires the strata company, in performing its functions, to have the objective of implementing processes and achieving outcomes that are not, having regard to the use and enjoyment of lots and common property:
(a)unfairly prejudicial to or discriminatory against a person; or
(b)oppressive or unreasonable.
In The Owners of Broome Beach Resort Strata Scheme 32190 and Waydanette Pty Ltd [2022] WASAT 56 (Waydanette) the Tribunal considered s 119 of the ST Act. Relevantly. the following was stated at [242] to [245] (footnotes omitted):
242The terms 'oppressive' and 'unreasonable' are not defined in the ST Act. Ordinarily the term 'unreasonable' means things that are not based on or in accordance with reason or sound judgment while 'oppressive' encompasses things that are burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical. I will apply these definitions in considering the application of s 119 of the ST Act[.].
243Both parties referred me to the High Court's decision in Wayde v New South Wales Rugby League Ltd(Wayde) which concerned whether the Board of the New South Wales Rugby League's decision to exclude a particular team (Wests) from the New South Wales Rugby League was in breach of s 322 of the Companies (New South Wales) Code which in summary, provides that if the affairs of the company are conducted in a manner that is oppressive, or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against a member or members, the court may make such order or orders that it thinks fit.
244The majority in Wayde found that the decision of the Board of the New South Wales Rugby League to exclude Wests from the League 'was taken honestly in pursuit of the object of fostering the game of rugby league and serving its best interests: cl 3(b), memorandum of association'.
245In concluding, the majority held:
Given the special expertise and experience of the Board, the bona fide and proper exercise of the power in pursuit of the purpose for which it was conferred and the caution which a court must exercise in determining an application under s. 320 of the Code in order to avoid an unwarranted assumption of the responsibility for management of the company, the appellants faced a difficult task in seeking to prove that the decisions in question were unfairly prejudicial to Wests and therefore not in the overall interests of the members as a whole. It has not been shown that those decisions of the Board were such that no Board acting reasonably could have made them. The effect of those decisions on Wests was harsh indeed. It has not, however, been shown that they were oppressive or unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory or that their effect was such as to warrant the conclusion that the affairs of the League were or are being conducted in a manner that was or is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial. That being so, the appellants have failed to make good their second submission.
246In my view Wayde supports the following two propositions:
a)that the application of provisions such as that in s 119 of the ST Act must be exercised with caution by the Tribunal in order to avoid an unwarranted assumption of the responsibility for managing a strata company; and
b)that a party seeking to rely on provisions such as in s 119 of the ST Act carries the burden of establishing that the decisions under challenge were such that no strata company acting reasonably could have made them.
In considering whether the quarterly contribution levied on all owners in proportion to the unit entitlement of their respective lots, under challenge by the applicants, is such that no strata company acting reasonably could have made it, I will apply the ordinary meaning of 'oppressive' and 'unreasonable' as set out above in Waydanette at [242].

I do not accept the applicants' assertion that the quarterly contribution levied on all owners pursuant to by-law 24(2) is oppressive or unreasonable. This is because the strata company is obligated under s 100 of the ST to create an administrative fund for administrative expenses that is sufficient in the opinion of the strata company for the control and management of the control and management of the common property, for the payment of any premiums of insurance and the discharge of any other obligations of the strata company. Under bylaw 24(1), the strata company levies a separate contribution on owners who have access to the common property areas 'CP28' and 'CP29'. The applicants are not levied any contribution under bylaw 24(1). Under by-law 24(2) the strata company levies contribution on all owners, including the applicants.
The applicants' urge the Tribunal to intervene in the management of the strata company to excuse the applicants from having to pay any contribution under by-law 24(2). To accept the applicants' contention and to intervene to excuse the applicants' from complying with the 'Levy Notice' issued from time to time by the strata company under s 100 of the ST Act for the quarterly contribution, I would need to, following Wayde, conclude that no strata company acting reasonably would have levied the contribution on the applicants. I do not accept the applicants' contention.
For reasons already explained, and repeated here, in my view, the levying of the quarterly contribution on all owners, in all of the circumstances, is a reasonable cause to adopt in the interests of all the owners in this strata scheme. In coming to this conclusion, I note that the strata manager provides various services to the strata company (see above at [106] to [107]), and as conceded by the applicants is entitled to be paid for services provided. Further, in my view, the applicants have not established that the strata company in levying the quarterly contribution on the owners in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective lots is such that no strata company acting reasonably would have levied such contributions. Therefore, in my view, the applicants cannot be excused from complying with and paying the quarterly contribution. Therefore, in my view, it is not appropriate to exercise the Tribunal's statutory discretionary power to exempt the applicants, as the owners of Lot 3, from paying the quarterly contribution as set out in by-law 24(2).
Lastly, as already explained, and repeated here, it may be appropriate, going forward, for the strata company to levy the quarterly contribution on owners for the 'strata management fees' on a different basis (that is other than in proportion to unit entitlement of their respective lots). But that is not for the Tribunal too readily impose its own views on the management of the strata company as to what is a reasonable basis for levying the quarterly contribution, but it is for the strata company strata company to determine.
Finally, I turn to consider the applicants' application for costs in these proceedings.

Application for costs

Under s 81(7) of the former ST Act (which only applies up to 1 May 2020), a party to proceedings in the Tribunal was prohibited from making an application for costs, other than in very limited circumstances. Such prohibition no longer applies under the ST Act. This means a party may make an application to the Tribunal for their costs in these proceedings in accordance with the r 42A of the State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA).
In their application to the Tribunal, the applicants seek their costs of $110.60 paid to Landgate as well as the application fee to file their application with the Tribunal (see above at [9]).
The strata company's position is that the application for costs should be dismissed.
Section 87(1) of the SAT Act directs that unless otherwise specified in the SAT Act, the relevant enabling Act or any other order of the Tribunal made pursuant to s 87(2) - s 87(6) of the SAT Act, the parties bear their own costs in a proceeding of the Tribunal. However, s 87(2) of the SAT Act confers a discretionary power on the Tribunal to make an order for the payment of all or any of the costs of another party, unless specified to the contrary in the relevant enabling Act. The power to make an order for the payment by a party of the costs of another party includes the power to make an order for the payment of an amount to compensate the other party for any expenses resulting from the proceeding (s 87(3) of the SAT Act).
In Brooks and Gransden Building Company Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASAT 86 at [149] a summary of the relevant principles to apply when considering an application for costs, as set out by the Court of Appeal in Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32 (Questdale), was provided as follows:
(1)[t]here is no presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs;
(2)[t]he discretionary power is to be exercised judicially; that is not arbitrarily, capriciously or so as to frustrate the legislative intent;
(3)[t]he power to award costs is to be exercised if it is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to do so;
(4)[t]he onus is on the party seeking an order in its favour to establish that a favourable order ought to be made;
(5)[t]he nature of the dispute is a relevant consideration in any application for costs;
(6)[e]very party to a proceeding before the Tribunal is taken to be cognisant of the objectives of the Tribunal as expressly provided for in s 9 of the SAT Act. It is therefore necessary for the applicant to establish that the respondent's conduct has impaired the attainment of the Tribunal's objectives to have the proceedings determined fairly and in accordance with the substantial merits, with as little formality and technicality as possible and in a way which minimises the costs to the parties; and
(7)[t]he mere fact that a party ultimately fails on a contention advanced during the course of the hearing does not, in itself, signify that the party has acted inconsistently with the objectives set out in s 9 of the SAT Act.
I now turn to consider whether it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of these proceedings for the applicants to be awarded an amount for their costs.

Nature of the dispute

The dispute raised the issue of levying of contributions by the strata company. It was open and appropriate for both the applicants and the strata company to properly put forward their position in their respective written submissions and at hearing as to the proper construction of bylaw 24(2). The fact that the applicants were unsuccessful, supports a finding that the strata company had a reasonable basis to challenge the applicants' interpretation of the by-law.
Ultimately, while the decision of the Tribunal turned on the evidence, it was reasonable for the applicants to bring the proceeding. It was also open and appropriate for the strata company to participate in the hearing to protect its interests.

Strata company's conduct

I am satisfied that the Tribunal was able to proceed to conclude the matter in accordance with its objectives as set out in s 9 of the SAT Act, including acting speedily and with as little formality and technicality as is practicable, and to minimise the costs to the parties.
I find the strata company acted reasonably in these proceedings.

Exercise of discretion

In my view, the dispute did raise some complex issues concerning the proper construction of by-law 42(2) and whether the by-law is invalid by application of s 46(j)(i) and s 46(j)(ii) of the ST Act. It was therefore open and appropriate, in my view, for the applicants to make submissions. The fact that the applicants were unsuccessful in these proceedings supports a finding that the strata company had a reasonable basis to contest the applicants' position.
I find that the strata company did not act unreasonably or inappropriately in the conduct of these proceedings so as to impair the attainment of the Tribunal's objectives in s 9 of the SAT Act.
Taking into consideration all of the above, in my view, no costs should be recovered by the applicants from the strata company. Such outcome accords with, is consistent with, and reinforces the objectives of the Tribunal.

Conclusion and orders

Reflecting back on the orders sought by the applicants in these proceedings to resolve a scheme dispute under s 197(4) of the ST Act (see above at [7]), and the findings reached that the strata company is required to determine amounts to be raised for payment into the administrative fund, that in the circumstances of this case, the strata company must levy contributions on owners in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective lots, that by-law 24(2) is not invalid and that ultimately taking all considerations into account, no order should be made under s 200 of the ST Act to exempt the owners of Lot 3 from the requirements of by-law 24(2), for the reasons set out above, in my view the application is unsuccessful and therefore must be dismissed.
The following orders are made:
The Tribunal orders:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.There be no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER
6 AUGUST 2024

Year	Strata Management Fees (strata manager)	Total raised
2014	$3,000	$5,280
2015	$3,500	$5,280
2016	$3,300	$5,280
2017	$3,632	$4,000
2018	$3,534	$4,000
2019	$3,534	$4,000
2020	$3,641	$3,741
2021	$3,641	$3,741
2022	$3,641	$3,741
2023	$3,713	$3,741

Due Date	Details	Admin Due	Reserve Due	Paid	Int Paid	Int Due	Total Due
01/02/2024	Standard Levy All Owners (01/02/24 - 30/04/24)	$30.85	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$30.85
Lot credit -	Total if Paid by Due Date$30.85
No GST has been charged					$30.85