SIMONSEN and REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS BOARD
[2006] WASAT 307
•12 OCTOBER 2006
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: VOCATIONAL REGULATION
ACT: REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS ACT 1978 (WA)
CITATION: SIMONSEN and REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS BOARD [2006] WASAT 307
MEMBER: HON R VIOL (SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
MR A MACRI (SESSIONAL MEMBER)
MR C ELIEFF (SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD: 22 SEPTEMBER 2006
DELIVERED : 12 OCTOBER 2006
FILE NO/S: VR 73 of 2006
BETWEEN: MARK SIMONSEN
Applicant
AND
REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS BOARD
Respondent
Catchwords:
Vocational regulation - Real estate sales representative - Whether time limit for application for registration under Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA) and regulations
Legislation:
Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA), s 23, s 23(2)(d), s 47, s 47(1)(b), s 47(1)(c), s 47(2)
Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board (General) Regulations 1979, reg 6(a), reg 6(b), reg 6(c), reg 6A, reg 6(1), reg 6(1)(a), reg 6(1)(b), reg 6(2), reg 6B, reg 6B(a), reg 6B(b), reg 6B(c)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17, s 18, s 29, s 29(1)
Result:
Decision of Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board affirmed.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Jeremy Allanson
Solicitors:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Jeremy Allanson
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary
The applicant sought registration as a real estate sales representative with the Real Estate and Business Agents Board (the Board).
The Board refused to hear the applicant's application on the basis that it had not been filed within the time specified by the Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA), and the regulations made pursuant thereto, that is, within 12 months of the applicant gaining a qualification which had been prescribed by the Board.
The applicant sought to have the board's decision reviewed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Board.
History
Mark Geoffrey Simonsen (the applicant) has for some time been seeking registration as a real estate sales representative. Such registration has been sought under the provisions of the Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA) (the REBA Act) and the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board (General) Regulations 1979 (the Regulations).
On 18 February 2006 the applicant filed an application for registration in the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board (the Board): the application was heard by the Board on 15 June 2006 and on that date the Board refused to hear the application; detailed reasons were not given at that time.
Written reasons for the Board's decision were given on 7 July 2006.
The applicant has sought a review, by this Tribunal, of the Board's decision.
Relevant Factual Background
The applicant is fifty years of age.
The applicant has not worked in the real estate industry. For approximately 17 years the applicant has worked in a sales and marketing position, preparing tenders and estimating on building projects.
In November 2003, the applicant completed a course at the Swan TAFE – the course was known as "Certificate III in Property (Real Estate MRE 702)" (the qualification). That is a qualification recognised by the Board.
In December 2003, the applicant applied to the Board for registration as a sales representative; such application relied upon the qualification.
The application was refused by the Board for reasons not relevant to the present review.
The applicant appealed against such refusal to the District Court of Western Australia which, on 22 April 2005, dismissed the appeal.
The applicant filed a second application for registration with the Board as a real estate sales representative on 18 February 2006, once again relying on the qualification.
It is obvious that such application was filed more then twelve months after the gaining of the qualification.
The Board heard the application on 15 June 2006, and on that date the Board refused to hear the application. The Board determined that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the application on the basis that the REBA Act and the Regulations require an application for registration as a sales representative based on the obtaining of an academic qualification, to be filed within twelve months of gaining such qualification.
Statutory background
A person aggrieved by a decision of the Board may seek a review thereof pursuant to s 23 of the REBA Act.
Section 23 is in the following terms:
"23. Application for review
(1)Any person aggrieved by a reviewable decision of the Board may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision.
(2)In subsection (1) ¾
"person aggrieved" means ¾
(a)a person whose licence or triennial certificate is affected by a reviewable decision or who, under Part III, applies for or objects to the grant of a licence or applies for the renewal of a triennial certificate;
(b)a person whose certificate of registration is affected by a reviewable decision or who, under Part IV, applies for the grant or renewal of a certificate of registration;
(c)a licensee who has, or seeks, the Board's approval under section 56 to carry on business pursuant to a franchising agreement or another party to the agreement;
(d)a person affected by a decision of the Board under Part VI;
(e)a person claiming against, or seeking the leave of the Board to commence an action in relation to, the Fidelity Fund; or
(f)a person affected by an order of the Board for costs under section 21;
"reviewable decision" means:
(a)a decision under Part III other than a determination of the form in which an application or objection is to be made;
(b)a decision under Part IV other than a determination of the form in which an application is to be made;
(c)a decision under section 56;
(d)a decision under Part VI;
(e)a decision under section 116 or 117; or
(f)an order for costs under section 21."
The applicant is a "person aggrieved" being a person affected by a decision of the Board under Part IV of the REBA Act (see s 23(2)(d)).
The decision is a "reviewable decision" because it is a decision under Part IV of the REBA Act (see s 23(2)(d)).
Pursuant to s 17 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (the SAT Act) s 17 "a matter that an enabling Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to deal with is a matter that expressly or necessarily involves a review of a decision, the matter comes within the Tribunal's review decision".
Pursuant to s 18 of the SAT Act, the Tribunal is required when exercising its review jurisdiction to deal with the matter in accordance with the SAT Act and the enabling Act, that is, the REBA Act.
The powers of the Tribunal on review are set out in s 29 of the SAT Act, that is
"29. Powers of Tribunal on review
(1)The Tribunal has, when dealing with a matter in the exercise of its review jurisdiction, functions and discretions corresponding to those exercisable by the decision-maker in making the reviewable decision.
(2)Subsection (1) does not limit the powers given by this Act or the enabling Act to the Tribunal.
(3)The Tribunal may ¾
(a)affirm the decision that is being reviewed;
(b)vary the decision that is being reviewed; or
(c)set aside the decision that is being reviewed; and
(i)substitute its own decision; or
(ii)send the matter back to the decision-maker for reconsideration in accordance with any directions or recommendations that the Tribunal considers appropriate,
and, in any case, may make any order the Tribunal considers appropriate.
(4)The fact that a decision is made on reconsideration as required under subsection (3)(c)(ii), does not prevent the decision from being open to review by the Tribunal.
(5)The decision-maker's decision as affirmed or varied by the Tribunal or a decision that the Tribunal substitutes for the decision-maker's decision:
(a)is to be regarded as, and given effect as, a decision of the decision-maker; and
(b)unless the enabling Act states otherwise or the Tribunal orders otherwise, is to be regarded as having effect, or having had effect, from the time when the decision reviewed would have, or would have had, effect.
(6)Without limiting subsection (5)(a), the decision-maker has power to do anything necessary to implement the Tribunal's decision.
(7)Despite subsection (5)(a), the decision as affirmed, varied, or substituted is not again open to review by the Tribunal as a decision of the decision-maker.
(8)Subsection (5)(a) does not affect an appeal under Part 5 against the Tribunal's decision.
(9)To avoid doubt it is declared that this section and section 27 do not extend to requiring or enabling the Tribunal to deal with a matter that is different in essence from the matter that was before the decision-maker."
The application for registration was made by the applicant pursuant to s 47 of the REBA Act which is in the following terms:
"Part IV - Registration of sales representatives
47. Natural person, grant of certificate of registration to
(1)Subject to this Act, an individual natural person who applies to the Board for a certificate of registration as a real estate and business sales representative and pays to the Board the prescribed fee for that certificate shall be granted and may hold a certificate of registration if the Board is satisfied that:
(a)he is of or over the age of 18 years;
(b)he is a person of good character and repute and a fit and proper person to hold a certificate of registration;
(c)he understands fully the duties and obligations imposed by this Act on persons involved in negotiating real estate transactions and business transactions.
(2)In subsection (1)(b) 'fit and proper' includes having such qualification by way of experience or otherwise as is prescribed, or, if no qualification is prescribed, includes having such qualification by way of experience or otherwise as is approved."
Relevant to the making of an application are Regulations 6A and 6B of the Regulations.
Regulation 6A and 6B are as follows:
"6A. Prescribed qualifications for sales representatives
The prescribed qualifications for the purposes of section 47(2) of the Act are the successful completion of:
(a)the TAFE Sales Representatives Registration Course provided by a registered training provider;
(b)the REIWA Sales Representatives Registration Course provided by the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia Incorporated; or
(c)both ¾
(i)Real Estate Business 305; and
(ii)Property Management 330,
provided by the Curtin University of Technology.
6B. Grant of certificate of registration
The Board or the Registrar may grant a certificate of registration under section 47 of the Act to an applicant ¾
(a)who applies within one year of successfully completing a qualification prescribed in regulation 6A;
(b)who has held a certificate of registration for at least 3 of the 5 years immediately preceding the making of the application; or
(c)who complies with regulation 6(a) or (b)."
Applicant's contentions
The applicant has contended that the Board did not, pursuant to s 47(2) of the REBA Act prescribe an alternative academic qualification to determine whether the applicant met the qualification prescribed by the Board in s 6A of the Regulations. The applicant has said that he should not be required to undertake the same course which he has already successfully completed and passed.
In relation to the time limit in reg 6B, the applicant contended that he complied with the time limit in his original application and that should satisfy the time limit required in relation to the second application filed by him.
It was further contended by the applicant that the Board failed to make an enquiry as to whether he complied with s 47(1)(c) of the REBA Act, that is, whether he understood fully the duties and obligations imposed by the Act on persons involved in negotiating real estate transaction and business transactions. That failure, the applicant says, involved a failure on the part of the Board to deny him procedural fairness.
Respondent's contentions
The respondent's main contention was that the qualification was prescribed by the Board pursuant to s 47(2) of the REBA Act and that regulations 6A and 6B, read together, require any application made under s 47 to be filed within one year of the gaining of such qualification.
Otherwise, the respondent took issue with the other contentions raised by the applicant.
Has the board jurisdiction to hear the application – in particular, is there a time limit for the filing of an application.
In this review, the Tribunal is unable to accept the contentions of the applicant and favours the submissions put forward on behalf of the respondent. As has been correctly contended by the respondent, the only issue at this point to be determined on the jurisdictional question, is whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a certificate of registration based on the holding of the qualification by the applicant; this Tribunal is not concerned with whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person by reason of good character and repute.
As to the question of whether or not the applicant is a "fit and proper person", under s 47(2) of the REBA Act, such expression includes "having such qualification by way of experience or otherwise as is prescribed". If no qualification is prescribed, such qualification by way of experience or otherwise may be approved by the Board. In this particular case, the Board has prescribed the qualifications required pursuant to reg 6A of the regulations and such qualifications include that obtained by the applicant. Thus the matters to be considered by the Board are limited to the qualifications as prescribed in reg 6A. It is clear that reg 6A is limited to qualification by way of academic qualification rather than experience.
The next question to be considered is whether or not the granting of registration based on the qualification under reg 6A brings into play reg 6B of the regulations, that is, whether or not reg 6A and reg 6B should be read together with the result that any application for registration based on the qualification must be made within one year of the completion of the qualification as prescribed by reg 6A.
In considering this question it is necessary to examine reg 6B with a view to determining its purpose and intent.
Reg 6B(a) empowers the Board to grant registration to an applicant who has successfully completed a qualification prescribed in reg 6A and "who applies within one year of successfully completing" that qualification.
In other words, reg 6A(a) imposes another condition on the gaining of a prescribed qualification, that is, the application must be made within one year of such qualification being obtained.
Regulation6B(b) provides an alternative method of regulation, by authorising the grant of registration to an applicant who has "held a certificate of registration for at least three of the five years immediately preceding the making of the application".
In other words, an applicant who has previously obtained and held a certificate of registration may be granted a certificate of registration under s 47 of the REBA Act provided that certificate of registration has been held for at least three of the five years "immediately preceding the making of the application".
It is clear from the wording of reg 6B(a) and (b) that both applications are required to be current, that is, must be made within a stipulated time of the gaining of the application of the qualification.
Regulation 6B(c) also empowers the Board to grant a certificate of registration to an applicant "who complies with reg 6(a) or (b)".
As pointed out by counsel for the respondent, the inclusion of the words "reg 6(a) or (b)" in reg 6B(c) is a mistake and is intended to refer to reg 6(1)(a) or (b).
The reason for this is that there is no reg 6(a) or (b) in the regulations, the history of the matter being as follows:
1.Regulation 6B was inserted in May 1987 (Government Gazette 8 May 1987, at 2103). It then referred to reg 6(a), (b) or (c).
2.The regulation was amended to delete the reference to paragraph (c) by Gazette 7 February 2003 at page 387. At that time (at page 386) reg 6 was repealed and a new regulation 6 was inserted, which was in the form of the current reg 6(1).
3.Regulation 6 was amended by numbering the existing reg 6(1), and by adding reg 6(2) by Gazette 13 January 2004 at page 145.
4.While reg 6A has paragraphs (a) and (b), the reference could not be to those paragraphs as par (c) is intended to be an additional or alternative qualification to those provisions.
The result of this is that reg 6B(c), by referring to reg 6(1)(a) or (b) creates as a further basis for the granting of a certificate of registration to a person who is qualified to be licensed as an agent pursuant to reg 6 which prescribes the examinations required for the registration of a person as an agent.
In relation to the seeking of a certificate of registration under reg 6(B) based on the holding of qualifications relating to an agent, under reg 6(1)(a) or (b), reg 6B(c) imposes no time limit on making an application.
It is clear, therefore, that applications under 6A(a) or (b) require the qualification to be recent. Further, there is no requirement for the Board (and in turn the Tribunal), as contended by the applicant, to assess whether the course undertaken by the applicant is the same or substantially the same as the qualifications prescribed.
The Tribunal considers that, having regard to the terminology of reg 6A and reg 6B, they are to be read together, otherwise reg 6B would be redundant; if a licence could be granted to the holder of a prescribed qualification, whenever gained, reg 6B would be irrelevant and have no meaning. Words and provisions in statutes must be construed to give meaning to such words or provisions (see Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355).
The result is that because the applicant has the qualification under reg 6A, that is, the TAFE Sales Representatives Registration Course, and because his application was filed more than 12 months after the obtaining of it, he does not satisfy the requirements of reg 6B and therefore, under s 47(1)(b) is not a fit and proper person to be registered.
It follows therefore that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the Board was correct in its determination in this regard. Further, it is clear that it was not encumbent on the Board to make the enquiry suggested by the applicant under s 47(1)(c) of the REBA Act; there was no failure on the part of the Board, in the Tribunal's view, to deny the applicant procedural fairness.
The Tribunal is also of the view that there is no merit in the applicant's contention that the current application should be regarded as one and the same as the first application filed by him. That application having been considered and determined, and an appeal having been heard and determined by the District Court in relation to it, that application was a finality and was incapable of being refreshed.
Finally, the applicant raised the question as to whether the Tribunal had the power to exempt the applicant from the Act or Regulations. As previously set out, when exercising its powers on review, the Tribunal has functions and discretions corresponding to those exercisable by the decision‑maker in making the reviewable decision. (See SAT Act s 29(1)). Within s 47 of the REBA Act, and regulations 6A and 6B there is no power given to the Board, and in turn the Tribunal, to waive a criteria of registration or to exempt an applicant from a requirement of the Act or regulations. Similarly, there is nothing in the SAT Act providing the Tribunal with a similar power.
The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the Board was correct in finding that because the application of the applicant was not filed within 12 months of him obtaining the qualification, it lacked jurisdiction to proceed further to hear his application, pursuant to s 47 of the REBA Act. That being so, it was not incumbent upon the Board, in the Tribunal's view, to proceed to consider whether or not the criteria in s 47(1)(c) had been investigated and considered by the Board.
The Tribunal, therefore, affirms the decision of the Board.
Before the Tribunal proceeds to make any orders it will await any submissions from the parties regarding costs.
I certify that this and the preceding [64] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
HON R VIOL, SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTY PRESIDENT
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: VOCATIONAL REGULATION
ACT: REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS ACT 1978 (WA)
CITATION: SIMONSEN and REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS BOARD [2006] WASAT 307 (S)
MEMBER: HON R VIOL (SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
MR A MACRI (SESSIONAL MEMBER)
MR C ELIEFF (SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD: 22 SEPTEMBER 2006
DELIVERED : 12 OCTOBER 2006
SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION :15 DECEMBER 2006
FILE NO/S: VR 73 of 2006
BETWEEN: MARK SIMONSEN
Applicant
AND
REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS BOARD
Respondent
Catchwords:
Vocational regulation - Real estate sales representative - Application for registration under Real Estate and Business AgentsAct 1978(WA) and regulations - Application for review of Board's decision refused - Whether applicant should pay respondent's costs
Legislation:
Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87, s 87(4), s 88
Result:
The application for costs to be awarded to the respondent is dismissed.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Jeremy Allanson
Solicitors:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Jeremy Allanson
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Bilek and Vata Investments Pty Ltd [2005] WASAT 153
Medical Board of Western Australia and Roberman [2005] WASAT 81
Shark Bay Tuna Farms Pty Ltd and Executive Director, Department of Fisheries (WA) [2005] WASAT 206
Case(s) also cited:
Simonsen & Real Estate and Business Agents Board [2006] WASAT 307
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
The applicant had sought registration as a real estate sales representative with the Real Estate and Business Agents Board (the Board).
The Board refused to hear the applicant's application on the basis that it had not been filed within the time specified by the Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA), and the regulations made pursuant thereto.
The applicant sought to have the Board's decision reviewed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Board.
An order was sought by the Board that the unsuccessful applicant should pay the costs of the Board.
The Tribunal refused to make such order for costs and ordered that each party pay their own costs.
Statutory background
The relevant section of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) is s 87 which provides as follows:
"87.Costs of parties and others
(1)Unless otherwise specified in this Act, the enabling Act, or an order of the Tribunal under this section, parties bear their own costs in a proceeding of the Tribunal.
(2)Unless otherwise specified in the enabling Act, the Tribunal may make an order for the payment by a party of all or any of the costs of another party or of a person required to produce a document or other material on the application of the party under section 35.
(3)The power of the Tribunal 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, loss, inconvenience, or embarrassment resulting from the proceeding or the matter because of which the proceeding was brought.
(4)Without limiting anything else that may be considered in making an order for the payment by a party of the costs of another party where the matter that is the subject of the proceeding comes within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is to have regard to ¾
(a)whether the party (in bringing or conducting the proceeding before the decision-maker in which the decision under review was made) genuinely attempted to enable and assist the decision-maker to make a decision on its merits;
(b)whether the party (being the decision-maker) genuinely attempted to make a decision on its merits.
(5)The rules may deal with the effect of certain offers to settle, and responses, if any, to the offer, on the making of an order for the payment by a party of the costs of another party.
(6)The Tribunal may order that the representative of a party, rather than the party, in the representative's own capacity compensate that or any other party for costs incurred because the representative acted in, or delayed, the proceeding in a way that resulted in unnecessary costs."
The applicant's contentions
In addition to s 87 of the Act, the applicant referred to s 88 of the SAT Act – this section is not relevant to the present application. The applicant submitted that he genuinely attempted to obtain a decision on its merits and disputed the respondent's submission that his (the applicant's) application was without merit and submitted that his application was a genuine and sincere attempt by him to seek registration as a sales representative. The applicant opposed the making of an order for costs against him on the basis of his age and the limited employment opportunities open to him, together with the effect that an order for costs would have on him financially.
Respondent's contentions
The respondent referred to s 87(4) of the SAT Act and accepted that the applicant had genuinely attempted to enable and assist the Tribunal to make a decision on its merits; no submission was made that there should be a finding adverse to the applicant under s 87.
The respondent submitted that the application in this case was completely without merit, the Tribunal having found against the applicant on all the matters submitted by him. Accordingly, the respondent submitted an order for costs should be made against the applicant in favour of the respondent.
Findings and relevant authorities
It is accepted that the starting point in applications for costs in the Tribunal is that each party should bear their own costs (see Shark Bay Tuna Farms Pty Ltd and Executive Director, Department of Fisheries (WA) [2005] WASAT 206 at par 36 where the Tribunal stated:
"... the State Administrative Tribunal has been established by the Parliament of the State with its review jurisdiction as part of the system of public administration of the State to ensure that the citizens and other entities may seek administrative justice in relation to decisions that affect their personal, proprietary and financial interests. The starting out position is that, absent other relevant factors, an applicant should be able to obtain review without being obliged to meet the decision‑maker's costs if they do not succeed; and, similarly, the decision‑maker is not ordinarily entitled to recover costs from the applicant in the event the review application is unsuccessful."
In Bilek and Vata Investments Pty Ltd [2005] WASAT 153 the Tribunal, in a commercial tenancy matter in its original jurisdiction, declined to award costs in favour of the respondent. The Tribunal suggested that great care should be taken in exercising any power to award costs in order to ensure that the Tribunal is readily accessible to the public and is of relatively low cost, particularly having regard to the Tribunal's obligations to act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the dispute and to conduct proceedings with as little formality and technicality as possible.
In relation to awards of costs against a vocational body, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that although the starting point is that parties must bear their own costs unless specifically provided in the SAT Act or the enabling Act, it is able, in appropriate cases, to award costs in favour of a successful regulatory authority (see Medical Board of Western Australia and Roberman [2005] WASAT 81).
In general, the Tribunal considers all relevant matters in determining whether or not to make an order for costs in favour of a successful vocational body, including cases in which an applicant is unsuccessful in seeking a review of a decision of a vocational body.
In the present case, the applicant was self‑represented but nevertheless prepared and argued his case well, and as accepted by the respondent, genuinely attempted to enable and assist the Tribunal to make its decision. In the course of argument, the applicant raised a number of matters which, although not accepted as valid by the Tribunal in its decision, were not of a frivolous or inordinately irrelevant nature. In the end, the Tribunal found that the provisions of the SAT Act were such that the applicant was "out of time" for the lodging of his application for registration. On the basis of the Tribunal's decision in Bilek's case, to order costs against the applicant in this matter would in the view of the Tribunal be to limit the accessibility of people in the position of the applicant to the Tribunal and would run counter to the Tribunal's obligation to act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the dispute. In this particular case, the applicant exercised a right available to him under the SAT Act and, notwithstanding what could be termed perhaps a valiant attempt to overturn the decision of the respondent, was unsuccessful.
In these particular circumstances, and bearing in mind the personal circumstances of the applicant, the Tribunal is of the view that there should not be an order for costs made against the applicant and that there should be an order that each party pay their own costs.
Orders
1.The application for costs to be awarded to the respondent is dismissed.
2.The parties shall bear their own costs.
I certify that this and the preceding [16] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
HON R VIOL, SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTY PRESIDENT
1
5
3