THE OWNERS OF 875 WELLINGTON STREET, STRATA PLAN 13599 and KAMIL ALSO KNOWN AS AHMED KAMIL - [2025] WASAT 19 (S)

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)
CITATION:   THE OWNERS OF 875 WELLINGTON STREET, STRATA PLAN 13599 and KAMIL ALSO KNOWN AS AHMED KAMIL [2025] WASAT 19 (S)
MEMBER:   MR E CADE, MEMBER
MS C CONLEY, MEMBER

HEARD:   14 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED          :   2 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 1751 of 2020
BETWEEN:   THE OWNERS OF 875 WELLINGTON STREET, STRATA PLAN 13599
Applicant
AND
EDDIE AHMED KAMIL ALSO KNOWN AS AHMED KAMIL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Application for costs by unsuccessful party in matter arising under Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) - Whether appropriate to award costs - Respondent's application for costs dismissed

Legislation:

Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination 2022 (WA)
Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination 2024 (WA)
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) (repealed)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA), s 133, s 299
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 9(b), s 47, s 87, s 87(1), s 87(2)
State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 42A
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 197(4), s 199, s 200, s 200(2)(m), s 206

Result:

Respondent unsuccessful

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr C S Williams
Respondent	:	Mr P G McGowan

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	GV Lawyers
Respondent	:	Butcher Paull & Calder

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

Blaszkiewicz and The Owners of 7 Henderson Street Fremantle (Strata Scheme 74918) [2021] WASAT 56
Chew and Director General of the Department of Education and Training [2006] WASAT 248
Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58
Pearce and Germian [2007] WASAT 291
Perth Central Holdings Pty Ltd and Doric Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] WASAT 302
Ransberg Pty Ltd and City of Bayswater [2016] WASAT 43 (S)
Smith and Murray Districts Carriage Driving Club Incorporated [2021] WASAT 44 (S)
The Owners of 52 Mill Point Road Strata Plan 62152 and Hanssen Pty Ltd [2021] WASAT 102 (S)
The Owners of 875 Wellington Street, Strata Plan 13599 and Kamil also known as Ahmed Kamil [2025] WASAT 19
Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

In The Owners of 875 Wellington Street, Strata Plan 13599 and Kamil also known as Ahmed Kamil [2025] WASAT 19 (Owners of Wellington Street) the applicant (Strata Company) applied to the Tribunal for orders under s 200 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act) against the respondent (Mr Kamil) in proceeding CC 1751 of 2020 and CC 1756 of 2020.
Subsequently, Dumo from Dubbo Pty Ltd, a lot owner and a company of which Mr Kamil was a director, applied to the Tribunal for orders under s 200 of the ST Act (CC 1565 of 2022) against the Strata Company.
Prior to the Hearing, the Strata Company sought leave to amend its application in respect of CC 1751 of 2020 (Leave Application) by including three additional orders (Proposed Amended Orders). Mr Kamil applied for the second and third orders of the Proposed Amended Orders to be struck out or leave to amend be refused under s 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) as an abuse of process. The Tribunal refused to grant the Applicant leave to amend in respect of the second and third orders.[1]
[1] ts 67 - 72, 28 February 2024.
The three proceedings were heard together at a final hearing. The Tribunal granted the orders sought by the Strata Company and dismissed the application brought by Dumo from Dubbo Pty Ltd.
Mr Kamil has now applied for orders that:
(a)the Strata Company pay Mr Kamil's costs arising from the abuse of process fixed in the amount of $20,683.30 (Costs Application);
(b)the Strata Company is to separately levy the amounts to pay his costs from the unit holders; and
(c)the Strata Company is prohibited from levying the amount to pay his costs from Mr Kamil and his associated companies (Dumo from Dubbo Pty Ltd; Baldy Big Nose No Teeth and Pregnant Pty Ltd and Perth City Apartment Hotel Pty Ltd).
The Costs Application was supported by written submissions[2] and a Bill of Costs.[3]
[2] Submissions on Costs Pursuant to Order of 21 May 2025 filed on 6 June 2025 (Mr Kamil's Costs Submissions).
[3] Bill of Costs filed on 6 June 2025.
The Strata Company filed submissions in opposition to the Costs Application.[4]
[4] Applicant's Submissions on the Question of Costs filed on 24 June 2025 (Strata Company's Costs Submissions).
The Costs Application was heard in the Tribunal on 14 August 2025 and each party made oral submissions in support of their written submissions.

Issues for determination

The issues to be determined are:
(a)whether the Costs Application was made within time and, if not, whether Mr Kamil should be granted an extension of time;
(b)whether the Tribunal should award costs to Mr Kamil in respect of the abuse of process; and
(c)if so, the amount of those costs.

Submissions of Mr Kamil

Mr Kamil's Costs Submissions may be summarised as follows:
(a)there is nothing in the ST Act which precludes the Tribunal from making an order for costs;
(b)the Tribunal may make an order for costs if, inter alia, the proceedings in some other way constitute an abuse of process;
(c)the Tribunal found that the Applicant had committed an abuse of process in respect of the Proposed Amended Grounds;
(d)the Tribunal should award Mr Kamil his costs in relation to the costs he has incurred as a result of the abuse of process;
(e)section 206 of the ST Act enables the Tribunal to make orders directing the strata company to levy contributions and prohibiting the strata company from levying a contribution that would be payable by another party to the dispute; and
(f)the Bill of Coss represents the work done and costs thrown away as a result of the abuse of process and time spent on each item.
The Strata Company's Costs Submissions may be summarised as follows:
(a)the presumptive position is that each party will bear their own costs;
(b)a finding of abuse of process is a factor which may result in the Tribunal deciding to make a costs order against the offending party in favour of Mr Kamil but the Tribunal is not mandated to make such a costs order;
(c)the question is whether it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case that a party should be compensated for the costs it has incurred;
(d)this is not a case where the Tribunal found the commencement of proceedings was an abuse of process but was confined to the Proposed Amended Orders;
(e)the question of whether the Strata Company could amend its application to pursue the Proposed Amended Orders comprised a skirmish in the much broader dispute comprised of CC 1751 of 2020; CC 1756 of 2020 and CC 1565 of 2022;
(f)Mr Kamil was unsuccessful in respect of the other preliminary issue dealt with by the Tribunal at the same time as the Proposed Amended Orders, namely whether the bringing of the proceedings in CC 1751 of 2020 and CC 1756 of 2020 were authorised by the Strata Company;
(g)Mr Kamil was ultimately substantially unsuccessful in the three proceedings;
(h)it would not be fair and reasonable to isolate one issue on which Mr Kamil was successful and award him costs when the Strata Company has been left to bear its own costs of the substantive proceedings in which it was substantively successful;
(i)the amount of costs sought be Mr Kamil is manifestly excessive; and
(j)Mr Kamil should not be able to obtain his costs of arguing about whether there should be a costs order (Items 8 - 10 of the Bill of Costs).

Submissions of the Strata Company

Findings of fact

The following facts are not in dispute and we find:
(a)the Leave Application was heard and determined in the Tribunal on 28 February 2024 and orders were made that leave be refused;[5]
[5] Order 1 of the Orders dated 28 February 2024.
(b)on 28 February 2024 the Tribunal asked the parties whether there was anything further arising from the Leave Application and counsel for Mr Kamil informed the Tribunal as follows:
Well, there's two consequences as far as we're concerned. One is, there is a question of costs, but we will deal with that at the end rather than now, because the implications what happened give rise, we say, to exposure to costs as far as the applicant is concerned.
(c)on 29 February 2023, counsel for the applicant submitted to the Tribunal that:
But I should also add, just so my friend is clear and so the Tribunal is clear, our submissions in 1751 and 1756 also include submissions in relation to costs on the matters, the subject of the ruling made by the tribunal yesterday, and we believe the matters are such that the capacity of the tribunal to make an order under section 87(1) is enlivened by the nature of the application and the way in which it was dealt with, but we will make our submissions on that …
(d)the Tribunal's decision in Owners of Wellington Street was delivered on 28 February 2025 and final orders made on the same date;
(e)by letter dated 15 April 2025 the solicitors for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal seeking a costs order in relation to the Leave Application; and
(f)the Strata Company has not sought costs in the Tribunal against, or otherwise been paid costs by, Mr Kamil in respect of any of the three proceedings.

General principles relating to costs in the Tribunal

An application to the Tribunal for costs under is to be made within 21 days of the orders to which the application relates being made by the Tribunal.[6]
[6] State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 42A.
The starting point for the consideration of the question of costs is s 87(1) of the SAT Act, namely that each party bears its own costs.
However, s 87(1) of the SAT Act is subject to any relevant provision of the enabling Act and the discretion of the Tribunal under s 87(2) of the SAT Act to make an order for the payment by a party of all or any of the costs of another party.
The relevant enabling Act in this case is the ST Act. There is nothing in the ST Act which precludes the Tribunal from making an award of costs in relation to a matter arising under the ST Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal may determine the Costs Application in accordance with s 87 of the SAT Act.
In Chew and Director General of the Department of Education and Training [2006] WASAT 248 (Chew), a proceeding falling within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, the Tribunal said at [85]:
… [T]he Tribunal should not generally make an award for costs unless a party has conducted itself in such a way as to unnecessarily prolong the hearing; has acted unreasonably or inappropriately in its conduct of the proceedings, has been capricious; or the proceedings in some other way constitute an abuse of process. The Tribunal might also make an order as to costs where a matter has been brought vexatiously or for improper purpose.
In Pearce and Germian [2007] WASAT 291 at [24], a proceeding falling within the Tribunal's original jurisdiction, the Tribunal accepted that each party should expect to pay their own costs unless there are circumstances of the type identified in Chew or where costs are incurred in defending an obviously unmeritorious claim.
In Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32 (Questdale), the Court of Appeal considered the approach that should be taken to awards of costs by the Tribunal in light of s 87(1) and s 87(2) of the SAT Act. The principles articulated in Questdale were succinctly summarised in Blaszkiewicz and The Owners of 7 Henderson Street Fremantle (Strata Scheme 74918) [2021] WASAT 56 at [61] - [62] as follows:
61…
(a)the presumptive position or starting point under s 87(1) is that the Tribunal is a 'no costs' jurisdiction, and that each party will bear its own costs;
(b)the discretion of the Tribunal to award costs under s 87(2):
(i)is to be exercised 'judicially', in that it should not be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or to frustrate the legislative intent;
(ii)is directed to the question of whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is fair and reasonable that a party should be reimbursed for the costs it incurred (the legal rationale is not to punish the person against whom the order is made);
(iii)is broad, so that the considerations relevant to its exercise are unconfined, except that the Tribunal is bound to take account of the matters specified in s 87(4), and should have regard to subject matter, scope and purpose of the SAT Act;
(c)factors that may be considered in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion include (non-exhaustively):
(i)the nature of the dispute, and the legislative scheme under which it arises; and
(ii)whether a party has conducted itself in a manner that has impaired the attainment of the Tribunal's objectives under s 9 of the SAT Act (to determine proceedings fairly and in accordance with the substantial merits, with as little formality as possible, and in a way that minimises costs to the parties);
(d)the fact that a party ultimately fails on its contentions does not of itself signify that it has acted inconsistently with the objectives in s 9 of the SAT Act; and
(e)the party seeking costs bears the onus of satisfying the Tribunal in relation to the exercise of its discretion.
62Circumstances in which costs might be awarded include where a party has conducted itself unreasonably or inappropriately, where the weakness of the case is such that it could be described as 'incredible' or 'implausible' or 'obviously unmeritorious', or where an application undermines the integrity of proceedings under the relevant legislative scheme: Pearce & Anor and Germain [2007] WASAT 291(S) at [22]-[24]; Gill & Ors and Wildnight Pty Ltd [No 2] [2008] WASAT 135 at [20].[7]
[7] Blaszkiewicz at [61] - [62].
One of the objectives of the Tribunal is to 'act as speedily and with as little formality as practicable and minimise the costs to parties'.[8] In The Owners of 52 Mill Point Road Strata Plan 62152 and Hanssen Pty Ltd [2021] WASAT 102 (S) (Hanssen), the Tribunal said at [25] - [26]:
25The procedures of the Tribunal are designed to achieve the objectives prescribed by s 9 of the SAT Act. Where an order for costs is made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal's obligation to minimise the costs to parties will be reflected in the costs assessed by the Tribunal as recoverable. That approach reflects an expectation that parties will approach proceedings in a way that minimises costs of the proceeding: J & P Metals Pty Ltd and Shire of Dardanup [2006] WASAT 282 (S) at [38]. Therefore, an order for costs should be approached in a broad and relatively robust fashion: Perth Central Holdings Pty Ltd and Doric Constructions Pty Ltd [No.2] [2008] WASAT 302 at [67] and Marvelle Investments Pty Ltd and Argyle Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] WASAT 125 (S) at [49].
26Even though fixing costs involves a relatively broadbrush approach, the Tribunal must nevertheless be satisfied that the costs claimed are reasonable and not excessive in nature: Rae and Prima Homes Nominees Pty Ltd [2020] WASAT 24 at [69].
[8] Section 9(b) of the SAT Act.
It is also important to reiterate that an award of costs made by the Tribunal is not intended to be a full indemnity or reimbursement for the actual expenses incurred by a party to proceedings in the Tribunal.[9]
[9] Perth Central Holdings Pty Ltd and Doric Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] WASAT 302 at [67]; and Smith and Murray Districts Carriage Driving Club Incorporated [2021] WASAT 44 (S) at [18].
A party seeking costs in the Tribunal must ensure that 'the Tribunal is appropriately informed as to the work done and time taken as it claimed for and the rates which are said to apply to that work'.[10]
[10] Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58 at [415].
There is no prescribed scale of party/party costs in relation to Tribunal proceedings. However, where the Tribunal makes an order for costs and fixes or assesses the amount of costs, the Tribunal will have regard to the hourly rates set out in the applicable costs determinations made by the Legal Costs Committee.[11]
[11] Ransberg Pty Ltd and City of Bayswater [2016] WASAT 43 (S) at [63].
There are two applicable determinations in relation to this matter. First, the Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination 2022 (WA) (2022 Costs Determination) which came into operation on 1 July 2022. Second, the Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination 2024 (WA) (2024 Costs Determination) which came into operation on 1 July 2024 (referred to collectively as Costs Determinations). Although the 2022 Costs Determination was made under the now repealed Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), it is taken to have been made under s 133 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA) (LPULA Act).[12] The 2024 Costs Determination was made under s 133 of the LPULA Act.
[12] Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA), s 299.
Under the Costs Determinations, the relevant maximum allowable hourly rates (inclusive of GST) are as follows:

Fee earner

2022 Costs Determination

2024 Costs Determination

Senior Practitioner

$429

$484

Junior Practitioner

$341

$385

Counsel fees (charged as a disbursement to practitioners)

$385

$429

Whether the Costs Application was made within time and, if not, whether Mr Kamil should be granted an extension of time

We find that, consistently with the main objectives of the Tribunal stated in s 9 of the SAT Act, the Costs Application was made orally on 28 and 29 February 2024. Accordingly, the Costs Application was made within 21 days of the orders refusing leave to amend.

Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to make an order for the payment of costs by the Applicant

Nature of the dispute and the legislative scheme under which it arises

Under s 197(4) of the ST Act, an application for resolution of a scheme dispute can be made to the Tribunal by a party to the dispute and the Tribunal may make declarations[13] and any orders it considers appropriate to resolve the dispute or proceeding.[14]
[13] ST Act, s 199.
[14] ST Act, s 200.
It is important to note that Parliament has conferred jurisdiction on a forum where the presumptive position is that each party bears its own costs.[15]

Conduct of the Strata Company

[15] Questdale at [53].

On 28 February 2024, the Tribunal made the following findings of fact in relation to the Leave Application:
(a)on 18 December 2020, the applicant lodged an application, CC 1751 of 2020, with the Tribunal, seeking an order under s 200(2)(m) of the ST Act, that the respondents immediately refrain from charging for and receiving parking fees for vehicles parked on common property at the strata scheme;
(b)on 18 December 2020, the applicant lodged an application, CC 1752 of 2020, with the Tribunal, seeking an order under s 200(2)(m) of the ST Act, that the respondent immediately refrain from abusing, physically confronting and/or assaulting other owners of the strata scheme, employees or contractors of other owners, contractors engaged by the strata company and their employees and contractors, or the employees of the strata manager;
(c)on 18 December 2020, the applicant lodged an application, CC 1756 of 2020, with the Tribunal, seeking an order under s 200(2)(m) of the ST Act, that the respondent immediately remove CCTV cameras installed on common property at the strata scheme and make good any damages to the common property;
(d)on 9 July 2021, Mr Kamil and Mr and Ms Wheeler signed a mutual undertaking that they would not:
(i)interfere with any contractor, tradesperson, or workman engaged by the strata company carrying out work on common property; or (ii) interfere with the use and enjoyment of the common property by other owners or lots; or
(ii)disparage any family member of an owner of a lot; or
(iii)interfere with any employee of an owner of a lot working on common property;
(iv)disparage one another personally or to any third party. The mutual undertaking expressly states that application is withdrawn on each of Eddie Ahmed Kamil, Gregory Wheeler, and Heidi Wheeler giving the mutual undertakings;
(e)on 9 July 2021, the Tribunal ordered in respect of CC 1752 of 2020 that the applicant have leave to withdraw the proceeding, and the proceeding was withdrawn. At that time, it was submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of the applicant that the application was withdrawn on the basis of those undertakings having been made. It was accepted by the Tribunal that the mutual undertakings were a private undertaking between the three persons concerned;
(f)Mr Wheeler, who was one of the parties to the mutual undertakings, was the duly authorised representative of the applicant at that hearing;
(g)on 14 December 2023, the applicant filed proposed amended orders and grounds. The amended proposed orders that the applicant is seeking are:
(i)the respondent is to immediately refrain from charging for and/or receiving any parking fees for vehicles parked on the common property at the strata scheme;
(ii)the respondent is not to interfere with or obstruct any contractor on the common property at the strata scheme who is engaged by the strata company for the purpose of the management and control of parking on the common property;
(iii)the respondent is not to interfere with or obstruct any equipment or other property on the common property at the strata scheme which is installed by any contractor engaged by the strata company for the purpose of the management and control of parking on the common property.

The Tribunal dealt with the Proposed Amended Orders as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal found that because the proceeding in CC 1751 of 2020 brought in substantially the same issues as were the subject of the proceeding and mutual undertakings in CC 1752 of 2020, they were an abuse of process.[16] The Tribunal said:[17]
… whilst the proceedings in CC1752 of 2020 was not determined on the merits, it was nonetheless concluded by agreement to seek leave to withdraw on the giving of mutual undertakings. The applicant sought leave to withdraw the proceedings in light of those mutual undertakings. Had the applicant not been satisfied with those mutual undertakings, the proceeding would have continued to be determined on its merits. The undertaking was given in the context where the obstruction issues were explicit in CC1752 of 2020 and at best were latent in CC1751 of 2020.
… the lateness of the application to amend is a matter we have taken into consideration, given that these proceedings have been on foot since 2020. To allow the applicant to reagitate issues of obstruction and interference, which were explicit in the withdrawn proceedings, gives rise to an understandable sense of grievance on the part of the respondent and is not only oppressive but is unfair and brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
Further, it undermines confidence in the administration of justice if a party to a proceeding does not have confidence that a matter in the Tribunal can be resolved by way of undertaking and withdrawal. This is consistent with the objectives of the Tribunal set out in section 9 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act of 2004 and, specifically, to achieve the resolution of disputes fairly and to act as speedily and with as little formality and technicality as possible.
This is particularly so where there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the mutual undertakings have been, or will be, breached and the agreed statement of facts states two things: first, that there are currently no contractors engaged by the strata company for the purpose of management and control of parking on the common property. Second, there is currently no equipment or other property at the strata company which is installed by any contractor engaged by the strata company for the purpose of management and control on the common property.
[16] ts 70, 28 February 2024.
[17] ts 66 - 72, 28 February 2024.
The Tribunal granted leave to amend in terms of the first order of the Proposed Amended Orders (as set out in paragraph 29 (g)(i) above) and refused leave to amend in terms of the second and third orders (as set out in paragraph 29(g)(ii) and (iii) above).
Whilst we accept that a finding of an abuse of process may result in the making of a costs award, we are not satisfied that we should exercise our discretion to award costs to Mr Kamil for the following reasons.
First, the Tribunal did not find that the entire proceeding in CC 1751 of 2020 was an abuse of process. The Tribunal's finding was confined to the application for leave to amend in terms of the second and third orders of the Proposed Amended Orders.
Second, the Strata Company has made no application for costs against Mr Kamil in respect of any of the three proceedings, including CC 1751 of 2020, dealt with in Owners of Wellington Street in circumstances where the Strata Company was substantially successful. Nor has the Strata Company otherwise recovered its costs from Mr Kamil.
Third, Mr Kamil was also unsuccessful on two other preliminary matters or issues. First, in respect of whether or not the commencement and continuation of the proceedings in CC 1751 of 2020 and CC 1756 of 2020 was authorised by the Strata Company. Second, whether or not the Facilities Licence should be admitted into evidence.
Fourth, unlike the Supreme Court, the Tribunal is not expressly vested with the power to deprive a successful party of a portion of its costs because it did not succeed on a discrete issue. This is because the presumptive position in the Tribunal is that each party bears its own costs whereas the presumptive position in the Supreme Court is that the successful party will recover its costs.
Fifth, in light of the above, it would be neither fair nor reasonable to make a costs orders against the Strata Company.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, we have decided that Mr Kamil's application for costs should be dismissed.

Orders

The Tribunal orders:
1.The Respondent's application for costs is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS C Conley, MEMBER
2 OCTOBER 2025

Fee earner	2022 Costs Determination	2024 Costs Determination
Senior Practitioner	$429	$484
Junior Practitioner	$341	$385
Counsel fees (charged as a disbursement to practitioners)	$385	$429