THE OWNERS OF CHATEAU RIVERSDALE STRATA SCHEME 14729 and EBELING
[2025] WASAT 109
•9 OCTOBER 2025
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 2004 (WA)
CITATION: THE OWNERS OF CHATEAU RIVERSDALE STRATA SCHEME 14729 and EBELING [2025] WASAT 109
MEMBER: PRESIDENT GLANCY
HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED : 9 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S: CC 1289 of 2023
BETWEEN: THE OWNERS OF CHATEAU RIVERSDALE STRATA SCHEME 14729
Applicant
AND
THOMAS CHARLES EBELING
Respondent
Catchwords:
Enforcement - State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) s 86(2)(c) - Application for certificate of enforcement of non-monetary order - Factors for consideration - Whether order is appropriate for filing in the Supreme Court - Whether evidence of non-compliance - Whether order clear and unambiguous - Whether agreed to accept performance in different way - Whether other means to secure performance - Enforcement of orders made pursuant to Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) s 47(5) - Order to remove dog from strata scheme - Prima facie evidence of non-compliance - Appropriate to issue certificate - Suitable for enforcement
Legislation:
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 9, s 60(2), s 86, s 86(1), s 86(2), s 86(2)(c), s 86(4), s 95(1)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 45(2), s 47(1)(a), s 83, s 200(o)(i)
Result:
Certificate of appropriateness to issue
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Mr P Monaco |
| Respondent | : | N/A |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | GV Lawyers |
| Respondent | : | N/A |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Ebeling v The Owners of Chateau Riversdale Strata Plan 14729 [2025] WASC 110
Hampshire (WA) Parks Pty Ltd and Noakes [2025] WASAT 89
Microlink Investments Pty Ltd AFT Myalup Operations Trust t/as Myalup Beach Caravan Park and Quinn [2025] WASAT 55
Rogers and the Owners of the Linx at Nexus Strata Plan 47739 [2021] WASAT 70
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
The applicant in this proceeding has applied under s 86 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) for a certified copy of final orders made by Member East on 4 October 2024, and for the issue by a judicial officer of a certificate under s 86(2)(c) of the SAT Act that those orders are appropriate for filing in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The proceeding out of which the s 86 application arises involved a dispute between the applicant, which is the strata company of the scheme the subject of strata plan 14729 (Scheme), and the respondent, who is the registered proprietor and occupant of one of the lots which constitute the Scheme (Lot). It is not necessary for the purpose of dealing with this application to set out the full background to the dispute. It is sufficient to say that it concerned the respondent's keeping his dog, 'Buddy', at the Scheme without approval, and allowing - or failing to prevent - certain behaviour by Buddy at the Scheme, which the applicant argued constituted a breach of the Scheme's by-laws and of s 45(2) and s 83 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act).
On 4 October 2024, Member East declared that the respondent was, by keeping and continuing to keep Buddy at the Scheme without approval, and further by permitting or failing to prevent Buddy from roaming freely, barking, and biting another resident, in breach of the relevant by-laws and provisions of the ST Act. The Member subsequently made orders in the following terms:
2.Pursuant to s 47(5) of the [ST] Act, the Tribunal orders the respondent must:
a.Remove the dog Buddy permanently from the [Scheme] on or before 11 October 2024;
b.Pay a penalty of $100 for each contravention of the notices validly issued under s 47(1)(a) of the [ST] Act, being combined payment of $400 on or before 5pm on 18 October 2024; and
c.Not cause or permit the dog Buddy to be present on [the Lot] or any other part of the [Scheme] at any time.
3.For the payment of the Applicant's enforcement expenses by the Respondent in the liquidated sum of $15,007.10 pursuant to s 200(2)(o)(i) of the [ST] Act on or before 5pm on 1 November 2024.
4.Section 95(1) of the [SAT Act] applies to this decision (apart from the monetary order).
5.The application is otherwise dismissed.
The applicant wishes to seek to enforce the Tribunal's orders in the Supreme Court because it says that the respondent has not removed Buddy permanently from the Scheme.
Outcome
For reasons set out below I have concluded that it is appropriate for the orders to be filed in the Supreme Court.
Determination on the documents
Pursuant to s 60(2) of the SAT Act, this matter was determined entirely on the documents.
Those documents were:
1.the letter from the applicant filed on 4 June 2025;
2.the orders of the Tribunal made on 12 October 2023;
3.the affidavit of Shivhan Muruvan sworn on 5 June 2025;
4.the letter from applicant filed on 31 July 2025;
5.the submissions of the respondent filed on 31 July 2025;
6.the letter from the applicant dated 1 August 2025;
7.the submissions of the respondent filed on 5 August 2025;
8.the submissions of the applicant filed on 14 August 2025;
9.the submissions of the respondent filed on 14 August 2025;
10.the letter of the applicant filed on 19 August 2025; and
11.the letter of the applicant filed on 22 September 2025.[1]
[1] Documents 10 and 11 in this list were filed late, however, I have still had regard to them.
In addition to the documents filed by the parties, the respondent sent several emails to my chambers:
1.Email from the respondent sent on 24 June 2025 at 6:03 PM with subject line 'Re: CC 1289/2023 THE OWNERS OF CHATEAU RIVERSDALE STRATA SCHEME 14729 v EBELING';
2.Email from the respondent sent on 24 June 2025 at 12:01 PM with subject line 'Fwd: BREF 322597 | MC/CIV/PER/ROO/13058/2024 | THE OWNERS OF CHATEAU RIVERSDALE STRATA SCHEME 14729 v EBELING';
3.Email from the respondent sent on 24 June 2025 at 4:23 PM with subject line 'Fwd: Strata Invoice -S/P 14729 - Richardson Strata Management Services';
4.Email from the respondent sent on 24 June 2025 at 4:46 PM with subject line 'Re: Enquiry about something that is completely out of jurisdiction:';
5.Email from the respondent sent on 4 July 2025 at 2:10 PM with subject line 'CACV 34/2025 / SAT CC 1289/2023 - Emergency Stay Required Due to Active Corruption, Procedural Fraud & Misuse of Courts';
6.Email from the respondent sent on 11 July 2025 at 2:58 PM with subject line 'Fwd: Strata Invoice -S/P 14729 - Richardson Strata Management Services';
7.Email from the respondent sent on 15 July 2025 at 11:27 AM with subject line 'Re: 20250715 Bretnall Ebeling - Complaint - 2025/615 - Pino Monaco & and Shivhan Muruvan - GV Lawyers - Preliminary Assessment'; and
8.Email from the respondent sent on 20 August 2025 at 11:41 AM with subject line 'Re: THE OWNERS OF CHATEAU RIVERSDALE STRATA SCHEME 14729 v EBELING | STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CC 1289/2023'.
In accordance with the objectives set out in s 9 of the SAT Act, to the extent that they were relevant to the issues to be determined in this application, I have had regard to those emails.
Section 86 applications
Decisions of the Tribunal that are not monetary orders may be enforced in accordance with s 86 of the SAT Act.[2] Section 86(2) of the SAT Act provides:
A person seeking to enforce a decision under this section may file in the Supreme Court -
(a)a copy of the decision that a judicial member or the executive officer has certified to be a true copy; and
(b)the person's affidavit as to the non-compliance with the decision; and
(c)a certificate from a judicial member stating that the decision is appropriate for filing in the Supreme Court.
[2] SAT Act, s 86(1).
A 'decision' of the Tribunal includes an order, direction or determination of the Tribunal.[3]
[3] SAT Act s 3.
Once the documents referred to in s 86(2) are filed in the Supreme Court, the 'decision' is taken to be a decision of the Supreme Court and may be enforced accordingly,[4] including by proceedings for contempt.
[4] SAT Act s 86(4).
In Rogers and the Owners of the Linx at Nexus Strata Plan 47739,[5] the then President of the Tribunal, Pritchard JA, considered the meaning to be given to the requirement in s 86(2)(c) that the certificate given by the judicial officer state that the decision 'is appropriate for filing in the Supreme Court'. Taking into account the statutory context and broader contextual considerations, her Honour concluded that:[6]
[T]he purpose behind s 86(2)(c) of the SAT Act is that the issue of the certificate involves a screening or filtering process, performed by a judge of the Tribunal, to determine whether the decision is one which is appropriate (that is, suitable, fitting or proper) for filing in the Supreme Court, with the consequence that it may be the basis for enforcement proceedings, including proceedings in the nature of contempt proceedings. That purpose will be served by the judge considering whether there is any reason why it would not be suitable, fitting or proper for the decision to be filed, and thus enforced, including by contempt proceedings, in the Supreme Court, but subject always to the overarching principle that the proper administration of justice requires that the Tribunal's orders be complied with, and in the event that they are not, that they are able to be enforced.
[5] Rogers and the Owners of the Linx at Nexus Strata Plan 47739 [2021] WASAT 70 (Rogers).
[6] Rogers [73].
I agree with and respectfully adopt, as I did in Microlink Investments Pty Ltd AFT Myalup Operations Trust t/as Myalup Beach Caravan Park and Quinn[7] and Hampshire (WA) Parks Pty Ltd and Noakes,[8] her Honour's reasoning and conclusions.
[7] Microlink Investments Pty Ltd AFT Myalup Operations Trust t/as Myalup Beach Caravan Park and Quinn [2025] WASAT 55.
[8] Hampshire (WA) Parks Pty Ltd and Noakes [2025] WASAT 89.
Also in Rogers, Pritchard JA identified several matters to which the Tribunal must have regard in determining whether to grant a certificate under s 86(2)(c).[9] They were:
1.Whether the applicant for the certificate has given prima facie evidence of non-compliance with an order of the Tribunal. The judge determining the application could not be satisfied that the relevant order is appropriate for filing in the Supreme Court without such evidence.
2.The nature of the order made by the Tribunal. As Pritchard JA observed, it would not be appropriate, for example, to enforce programming orders or directions in the Supreme Court.
3.Whether the failure to comply with the Tribunal's order has been complete or partial. Where a partial failure to comply with an order of the Tribunal occurs, further directions by the Tribunal in the exercise of its power to make ancillary orders may facilitate complete compliance, obviating the need for the issue of a certificate.
4.Whether the failure to comply is attributable to ambiguity in the Tribunal's order. An order which is ambiguous or unclear is unlikely to be appropriate for enforcement in the Supreme Court because, as Pritchard JA observed, 'it could not be the basis for a contempt proceeding, nor could the Court appoint another person to perform an order which [is] not clear in its terms'.
5.Whether the party entitled to the benefit of the order has agreed to accept performance in a different way than is required by the terms of the order itself. If the parties have reached agreement of this kind, it may not be appropriate to enforce the order.
6.Whether there are other means by which the party alleging non- or partial compliance with the order could secure performance.
[9] Rogers [84].
Her Honour noted that these matters are not exhaustive. Again, I adopt her Honour's observation and explanation of the matters to which the Tribunal will have regard in determining an application for a certificate under s 86(2) of the SAT Act.
Jurisdiction
Having regard to the numerous documents filed, it is clear that the essence of the respondent's submission is that the Member's orders cannot be enforced because they are void ab initio because the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in making its decision. In advancing that argument, he purports to rely on Howard J's decision in Ebeling v The Owners of Chateau Riversdale Strata Plan 14729 [2025] WASC 110 (Ebeling).
In my view, the respondent's interpretation of Howard J's decision is incorrect. His Honour found that the Member did not act in excess of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in making her decision.[10] Though the Member exercised judicial power in determining the application brought by the Strata Company against the respondent,[11] his Honour found that to do so was within the Member's authority as a Member of the Tribunal.[12]
[10] Ebeling [47] - [52].
[11] Ebeling [47] - [51].
[12] Ebeling [49].
The result in Ebeling was that his Honour dismissed Mr Ebeling's application for judicial review of Member East's decision.[13] The effect of that decision is that there is no order displacing the orders made by the Member on 4 October 2024, that those orders remain in force, and that they are - subject to a judicial member of the Tribunal issuing a certificate under s 86(2)(c) of the SAT Act - capable of enforcement by the Supreme Court.
[13] Ebeling [235]; Orders of Howard J in CIV 2317 of 2024 dated 11 April 2025.
Other matters raised by the respondent, including that the Member's orders breach his human rights because Buddy is an assistance animal, and his indication that he either proposes to or has referred his concerns to the Corruption and Crime Commission, the National Anti‑Corruption Commission, the Ombudsman Western Australia and the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, are matters that might arguably go to the issue of whether the orders are appropriate for filing in the Supreme Court. However, in my view, the Tribunal should proceed on the basis that its orders are valid, and the respondent's concerns should, if necessary, be resolved elsewhere.
The applicant's evidence in support of the certificate
In support of its application, the applicant relies upon the affidavit of Shivhan Muruvan sworn on 5 June 2025.
In his affidavit, Mr Muruvan swears that he is a solicitor employed by GV Lawyers Pty Ltd and that he assists with the conduct of this matter on behalf of the applicant.
He also swears that:
(a)The respondent has failed, refused or neglected to comply with the orders made on 4 October 2024 to remove his dog, Buddy, from the strata scheme by no later than 11 October 2024.
(b)On May 1 2025, the respondent was requested to permanently remove Buddy from the strata scheme, but as of 2 June 2025, Buddy remained on the premises.
The applicant also relies on an admission made by the respondent in a directions hearing before me on 4 August 2025 that Buddy remains on the Scheme between around 11.30 pm and 7.00 am daily.[14]
[14] Applicant's submissions in reply dated 14 August para 1.3.
Findings
From the material filed by the applicant in support of the application for the certificate, I am satisfied of the following matters:
1.the Tribunal's orders of 12 October 2023 are final orders;
2.the orders of the Tribunal that the respondent must remove Buddy permanently from the Scheme on or before 11 October 2024, and that the respondent must not cause or permit Buddy to be present on the Lot or any other part of the Scheme at any time, are unambiguous;
3.the affidavit of Mr Muruvan, in which he says that the respondent has failed, neglected or refused to remove Buddy from the Scheme, provides prima facie evidence of non-compliance by the respondent with the orders as of 2 June 2025;
4.additionally, I accept the respondent's statement during the 4 August 2025 directions hearing that Buddy remains on the Scheme daily between approximately 11.30 pm and 7.00 am[15] as prima facie evidence of the respondent's non-compliance with the orders as of 4 August 2025;
5.there is no basis for me to think that the applicant has agreed to accept performance of the orders in some other way or at a later time. No such evidence was given by the applicant nor by the respondent; and
6.there is no other means by which the applicant can secure the performance other than by enforcing the order in the Supreme Court.
[15] Applicant's submissions in reply dated 14 August 2025, [1.3].
In those circumstances, I am of the view that it is appropriate to issue the certificate stating that the non-monetary orders of the Tribunal, made on 4 October 2024 (i.e. order 2(a) and order 2(c)) are suitable for enforcement in the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
I will make an order in the following terms:
1.Pursuant to s 86(2)(c) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the application for a certificate stating that the decision of Member East made on 4 October 2024 is appropriate for filing in the Supreme Court is granted and a certificate to that effect will be issued.
On 4 August 2025, programming orders were made in respect of any costs application which is to follow this decision.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
JD
Associate to the Hon Justice Glancy
9 OCTOBER 2025
0
4
2