MYBURGH CONCEPTS PTY LTD and CITY OF STIRLING

The case involved Myburgh Concepts Pty Ltd as the applicant and the City of Stirling as the respondent. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the reasons provided by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for its decision on costs under section 87 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (SAT Act). The applicants argued that the Tribunal failed to address key arguments regarding the merits of the respondent's decision to impose screening conditions on windows and balconies. The respondent contended that the SAT Act's requirements for providing reasons did not apply to the Tribunal's discretion in making a cost order.

The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's reasons for its cost decision were adequate. Specifically, it needed to assess whether the Tribunal sufficiently addressed the applicants' argument that the respondent did not genuinely assess the need for screening on merit. The applicants claimed that the Tribunal's reasons did not analyse whether the respondent's actions were a proper, genuine, and realistic consideration of the need for screening. They further argued that the Tribunal failed to address the applicant's claim that the respondent applied a blanket screening condition to every window, deck, or balcony regardless of its merits.

The court found that the applicants' ground of review had substance. The obligation for the Tribunal to provide reasons for its decisions was explained by Martin CJ in Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd. The reasons must elucidate the process of reasoning applied by the Tribunal to allow the unsuccessful party to evaluate the prospects of success on appeal and to enable the court to evaluate the process of reasoning if an appeal is brought. Given that the question of costs was a subject of both application and submissions, the Tribunal was obliged to give reasons for its decision in relation to costs. The court found that the Tribunal's reasons did not sufficiently address the applicants' arguments regarding the merits of the screening conditions, and thus the reasons were inadequate.

The court quashed the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal was directed to address the applicants' arguments regarding the merits of the screening conditions in its reasons for the cost decision.