THE OWNERS OF MILL POINT STRATA SCHEME 11391 and MAGNALAW PTY LTD - [2025] WASAT 106

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)
CITATION:   THE OWNERS OF MILL POINT STRATA SCHEME 11391 and MAGNALAW PTY LTD [2025] WASAT 106
MEMBER:   MS C BARTON, MEMBER
HEARD:   27 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED          :   3 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 531 of 2025
BETWEEN:   THE OWNERS OF MILL POINT STRATA SCHEME 11391
Applicant
AND
MAGNALAW PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Strata titles - Scheme dispute - Scheme participants - Resolution of a scheme dispute - Application for interim order - Multi-level residential dwelling - Unauthorised structural alterations to a lot - Water egress from lot to other lots in the scheme - Strata company permitted to compel access to inspect lot - Interim order made by reason of urgent circumstances

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 15(1)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (prior to 1 May 2020), s 82(2)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 3, s 65, s 87(2), s 95(1), s 95(1)(a), s 95(1)(d), s 95(1)(e), s 95(2), s 197(1)(a)(iii), s 197(2), s 197(4), s 200(1), s 200(1)(m), s 200(2), s 200(2)(m), s 201(1), s 201(2)

Result:

Application for interim order granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr P Monaco
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	GV Lawyers
Respondent	:	N/A

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

Bamblett and The Owners of Strathearn Strata Plan 1082 [2005] WASAT 20
Bonnie-Vale Pty Ltd and Walter Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] WASAT 267
Moss and Owners of Bijou Marina Village - Strata Plan 36747 & Others [2005] WASAT 107

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

On 6 August 2025, the applicant, The Owners of Mill Point Strata Scheme 11391 (applicant or Strata Company) commenced a proceeding in the Tribunal pursuant to s 197(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act) to resolve a scheme dispute.
The respondent in the proceeding is Magnalaw Pty Ltd (respondent), the owner of Lot 9 in the strata scheme known as 'Mill Point' (Scheme) which was created by the registration of Strata Plan 11391 (Strata Plan). The Strata Plan comprises 16 lots which, together with common property, forms an 8-storey residential development located at 16 Mill Point Road, South Perth.
The respondent is represented in the proceeding by its sole director, Dr Hassan Zaghloul, a qualified structural engineer, who resides at Lot 9 on the Strata Plan (Lot 9).
The applicant, on advice from a plumbing contractor, has reason to believe that water is escaping from Lot 9 and damaging other lots in the Scheme. Consequently, by way of an interim application, the applicant sought an urgent order from the Tribunal to compel access to Lot 9 to enable it to investigate the source of water ingress to those lots.
It is the respondent's position that the legal threshold to compel access to Lot 9 has not been met and, consequently, the application should be dismissed.
The interim application was listed for hearing on 27 August 2025 at which time I made orders allowing the applicant's representatives to compel access to, and conduct a non-invasive inspection of, Lot 9. Given the urgent nature of the application, I advised the parties at the conclusion of the hearing that I would provide reasons for the making of the interim orders at a later time. These are those reasons.

The Tribunal's jurisdiction

Pursuant to s 197(4) of the ST Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to resolve disputes between 'scheme participants'. The expression 'scheme participants' is defined in s 197(2) of the ST Act to include, relevantly, the strata company for the strata titles scheme and a member of the strata company for the strata titles scheme.
There was no dispute and, I find, that the respondent is the owner of Lot 9 and, therefore, a scheme participant for the purposes of s 197(2) of the ST Act. I further find that the applicant, being the Strata Company of the Scheme, is also a scheme participant.
A 'scheme dispute' for the purposes of s 197(4) of the ST Act includes an alleged contravention of the ST Act.[1] In this proceeding, the applicant alleges that the respondent has undertaken certain internal building work to Lot 9 without the applicant's approval, in contravention of s 87(2) of the ST Act, which has resulted in water escaping from the lot and damaging other lots in the Scheme. Consequently, I am satisfied that the dispute between the applicant and the respondent, being scheme participants, falls within the meaning of a 'scheme dispute'.
[1] ST Act, s 197(1)(a)(iii).
At a meeting of the Council of Owners of the Strata Company (CoO) held on 28 July 2025, the CoO authorised the applicant's solicitors to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.[2]
[2] Exhibit 1, page 79.
For these reasons, I find that the Tribunal has original jurisdiction to determine the scheme dispute between the parties pursuant to s 15(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act).

The Tribunal's power to make an interim order

In a proceeding under the ST Act, the Tribunal has power to make any order it considers appropriate to resolve a scheme dispute,[3] including an order on an interim basis pursuant to s 201(1) of the ST Act if satisfied that it should do so by reason of the urgent circumstances of the case. Relevantly, the Tribunal may make an interim order pursuant to s 200(2)(m) of the ST Act requiring a person to take specified action or to refrain from taking specified action to remedy the contravention or prevent further contravention of the ST Act. An interim order remains in force for the period, not exceeding 3 months, specified in the order and may be renewed by further order of the Tribunal for subsequent periods (not exceeding, in any case, 3 months).[4]
[3] ST Act, s 200(1).
[4] ST Act, s 201(2).
It follows that the Tribunal has power to make an interim order pursuant to s 201(1) of the ST Act allowing the strata company of a scheme to compel access to a lot if the circumstances of the case give rise to the need for urgent relief.[5] Before making an interim order, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried and, having regard to the balance of convenience, the application for the order sought should be granted. These matters were relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to make an interim order pursuant to s 82(2) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) that was in operation prior to 1 May 2020 (prior ST Act) and in substantially the same terms as s 201(1) of the ST Act.[6] If the Tribunal decides to make an interim order, it is to consider whether it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case to require the applicant to give an undertaking as to damages.
[5] See Bamblett and The Owners of Strathearn Strata Plan 1082 [2005] WASAT 20 where an application for interim relief under s 82(2) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) in operation prior to 1 May 2020 was dismissed because there was no urgency.
[6] See Bonnie-Vale Pty Ltd and Walter Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] WASAT 267; see also Moss and Owners of Bijou Marina Village - Strata Plan 36747 & Others [2005] WASAT 107.
When granting interim relief under the ST Act, the Tribunal may make any ancillary orders without limitation.[7]
[7] ST Act, s 200(2).

Background to the dispute

The respondent has previously permitted contractors, engaged by the applicant, to access Lot 9 to assess whether water is escaping from the lot into Lot 7, located immediately below Lot 9. However, the applicant contends that the representative of the respondent, Dr Zaghloul, refused to allow the taking of photographs of unauthorised renovations and structural alterations to Lot 9 that may be the cause of water egress from the lot, and has placed time limits and restrictions on the conduct of investigations.[8]
[8] Exhibit 1, page 83.
The applicant further contends that the respondent has altered the front entry door of Lot 9 by installing a non-fire-rated door handle which has resulted in exposed gaps, thus rendering the door's fire rating void.[9]
[9] Exhibit 1, page 84.
It is the respondent's position that it has fully co-operated with the applicant's requests for plumbing contractors to enter and inspect Lot 9 which demonstrates a consistent willingness to assist.[10] Nevertheless, the respondent's representative, Dr Zaghloul, opposes the current application by the Strata Company for orders to grant it temporary access and conduct an inspection of Lot 9 on the basis that it is not being pursued for genuine maintenance purposes.[11] Dr Zaghloul contends that the presence inside his home of members of the Strata Company, the CoO and the strata manager is unnecessary, invasive and unjustified.[12]
[10] Exhibit 1, page 113.
[11] Exhibit 1, page 112.
[12] Exhibit 1, page 113.

Issues for determination

The following issues arise for determination:
(a)Whether the applicant should be permitted to compel access to Lot 9, by way of an interim order, to:
a.investigate if water is escaping from the lot and causing damage to other lots in the Scheme?; and
b.inspect the front entry door of the lot and assess whether it is fire-rated?

Tribunal's consideration

In a proceeding under the ST Act, the Tribunal may make an order on an interim basis if satisfied that by reason of the urgent circumstances of the case it should do so.[13]
[13] ST Act, s 201(1).
The applicant seeks an urgent order, on an interim basis, to compel access to Lot 9 because of water escaping from the lot that may have been caused by structural alterations that were not authorised by the Strata Company in contravention of the ST Act. Section 87(2) of the ST Act provides that an owner of a lot in a scheme of two or more lots must not cause or permit the structural alteration of the lot except with the prior approval, expressed by resolution without dissent, of the strata company.
Pursuant to s 95(1) of the ST Act, a strata company may enter any part of the parcel of the scheme for the purposes of, relevantly, inspecting that part or any other part of the parcel and for ascertaining whether the ST Act has been complied with.[14] The word 'parcel' is defined in the ST Act to mean land subdivided by a strata titles scheme and, therefore, includes that part of the scheme that is a lot.[15] A strata company has power to enter a lot to carry out work that it is required or permitted to carry out under the ST Act.[16] If a strata company needs to enter a lot to inspect it or carry out work, it is exercising rights under a statutory easement, and is required to give the occupier of the lot notice in accordance with the provisions of s 65 of the ST Act.[17]
[14] ST Act, s 95(1)(d) and s 95(1)(e).
[15] ST Act, s 3.
[16] ST Act, s 95(1)(a).
[17] ST Act, s 95(2).

On 15 May 2025, the applicant's solicitors wrote to the respondent seeking to enter Lot 9 to allow the Strata Company's contractors to inspect and carry out necessary remedial works to address water ingress affecting the laundry ceiling of Lot 7. The letter advised the respondent that the applicant was aware of structural alterations that had been undertaken to Lot 9 and notified the respondent that an application was required under s 87(2) of the ST Act to obtain the Strata Company's approval for the alterations.[18] The respondent replied to the letter advising the applicant that there were no structural alterations to Lot 9. However, the respondent did not confirm that it would grant access for the purpose of an inspection.[19]
[18] Exhibit 1, page 101.
[19] Exhibit 1, page 84.
On 18 July 2025, the occupant of Lot 5 (located immediately below Lot 7) reported to the strata manager that there was a leak in the ensuite bathroom ceiling and that there was a large amount of water overflowing the balcony of Lot 9. The occupant of Lot 1, located on the ground floor, has also reported that there is water overflowing the balcony of Lot 9 which has caused damage to furniture located in the outdoor area of Lot 1.[20]
[20] Exhibit 1, page 84.
The outdoor area of Lot 1, located on the ground floor, and the balconies of the lots located above, including Lot 9, are common property for the exclusive use of those lots.[21] The stratum of areas for exclusive use extends from the upper surface level of their respective paving to a height of 2.5 metres except where covered.[22] It is common ground that the interim application to access and inspect Lot 9 extends to an inspection of the Lot 9 balcony.
[21] Exhibit 1, pages 90 to 97.
[22] Exhibit 1, page 33 to 40.
I will next outline the evidence of the witnesses called by the parties.

Summary of the witness evidence

In support of its application for an order to compel interim access to Lot 9, the applicant tendered in evidence a video taken by Ms Hayley Johnson, who is the owner and occupant of Lot 3, one of the lots of the Scheme located below Lot 9. The video was filmed from Lot 3 by Ms Johnson at around 8.00 am on the morning of the hearing and showed water cascading down the side of the Scheme building from the spigot of the balcony of Lot 9 above.[23] Whilst Dr Zaghloul contends that the water draining from the spigot was caused by rain, he did not adduce any evidence to support of his contention other than his observation that the sky was cloudy.[24] The Bureau of Meteorology recorded no rainfall at Perth Metro (the nearest weather station to South Perth) on the day of the hearing. Consequently, for these reasons, I accept the oral evidence of Ms Johnson, and I find, that it was not raining in the immediate locality of the Scheme building on the morning that she took the video footage.
[23] ts 48, 27 August 2025.
[24] ts 40, 27 August 2025.
The applicant relied on the written and oral testimony of Mr David Kolk, a licensed plumber with Perth Plumbers. Dr Zaghloul had previously engaged Mr Kolk, on behalf of the respondent, to carry out a portion of the plumbing work at Lot 9 before the applicant called Mr Kolk to give evidence in this proceeding. Because Mr Kolk had completed licensed plumbing work at Lot 9, Dr Zaghloul contends that any issues or faults with it should be the responsibility of Mr Kolk.[25]
[25] ts 63, 27 August 2025.
Whilst Mr Kolk gave his evidence by telephone, I found him to be a credible witness who responded to questions posed of him in an honest and forthright manner. He stated that the plumbing work he had completed at Lot 9 for the respondent, at the direction of Dr Zaghloul, was connected and tested without leaks.[26] The scope of the work Mr Kolk undertook at Lot 9 involved connecting the fixtures which included installing the shower head, mixer handles, basins, vanity handles and mounting the toilet to the wall, and also drainage work for a basin waste on the balcony.[27] He also connected a washing machine on the balcony at the direction of Dr Zaghloul. At that time, Mr Kolk observed that the fall of the tiles in the shower area of the ensuite bathroom was insufficient to contain water (as it did not have a hob) and that it would track away from the shower towards the wall closest to the shower where there was no drain, and then to the balcony outside. Mr Kolk said that this is not an acceptable plumbing solution to a shower in an ensuite bathroom.[28]
[26] ts 22, 27 August 2025.
[27] ts 19 - 20, 27 August 2025.
[28] ts 21, 27 August 2025.
In Mr Kolk's opinion, water pooling on the Lot 9 balcony from the shower area of the ensuite is the cause of the water observed pouring from the spigot in the video taken on the morning of the hearing.[29] He said that the works he had completed on the balcony were connected and tested without leaks.[30]
[29] ts 21 - 22, 27 August 2025.
[30] ts 22, 27 August 2025.
Mr Kolk returned to the Scheme building on 16 April 2025 because he was asked by the applicant to investigate a water leak from the ceiling of the laundry of Lot 7. Mr Kolk said that, in addition to Lot 7, he inspected Lot 9 where he observed water around the floor waste pipe in the laundry where it penetrates the concrete slab. He identified two floor wastes that did not appear to have any waterproofing membrane around them or any puddle flanges installed which he said is a requirement of any shower or waste pipe penetration in a wet area.[31] When Mr Kolk checked the shower area close to the laundry in Lot 9, he formed the opinion that the use of the shower caused water to track under the tiles, move to the floor waste in the laundry and leak through the slab into Lot 7 below.[32]
[31] Exhibit 1, page 110; ts 24, 27 August 2025.
[32] Exhibit 1, page 111.
Under cross-examination, Mr Kolk conceded that there may not be a current issue with water entering Lot 7 because silicone had been applied to prevent leaks.[33] However, notwithstanding the application of silicone, it is Mr Kolk's opinion that the wet areas are a possible source of water egress from Lot 9 and warrant careful investigation.[34]
[33] ts 35, 27 August 2025.
[34] ts 39, 27 August 2025.
On 16 April 2025, Mr Kolk also investigated a puddle on the balcony of Lot 9 to find water tracking from the ensuite shower.[35] He observed that the shower in the ensuite had a minimal grade on the floor tiles.[36] In his opinion, the water fills the shower area and then tracks on top of the tiles over to the wall closest to the shower. It then tracks from the wall out onto the balcony.[37] Because the owner of Lot 9 has cut the concrete floor of the balcony to recess the electrical conduits, the water follows this cut and pools on the north corner of the balcony.[38]
[35] Exhibit 1, page 121; ts 21, 27 August 2025.
[36] ts 20, 27 August 2025.
[37] ts 21, 27 August 2025.
[38] Exhibit 1, page 121.
Mr Kolk considered that it would be reasonable for both a licensed plumber and a contractor who specialises in water leak detection to be engaged to define the exact problem at Lot 9 and pinpoint any leak.[39]
[39] ts 24, 27 August 2025.
The strata manager of the Scheme, Ms Eliza Pelsner from Strata Elite, provided a witness statement in support of the applicant's position. After taking over as strata manager, Ms Pelsner became aware that there were structural alterations underway at Lot 9.[40] Her enquiries revealed that the alterations had not been approved by the local government or the Strata Company.[41] At the hearing of the interim application, the respondent called Ms Pelsner to give oral evidence. In response to questions posed by Dr Zaghloul, Ms Pelsner confirmed that the owner of Lot 7 had advised her that repairs undertaken in the laundry had been damaged due to water leaking through the ceiling from Lot 9 and 'needed to be done again'.[42]
[40] Exhibit 1, page 104.
[41] Exhibit 1, page 104.
[42] Exhibit 1, page 122; ts 72, 27 August 2025.
The treasurer of the CoO, Mr Roberson, stated in evidence that Dr Zaghloul had placed restrictions on the latest plumber to visit Lot 9. Mr Roberson understood that Dr Zaghloul had prevented the plumber from taking photographs and limited the time for the inspection.[43] Mr Roberson was also concerned that the fire rating of the front entry door of Lot 9 had been affected by the installation of a non-fire-rated door handle which had resulted in gaps in the door.
[43] ts 56, 27 August 2025.
The parties were required, by order of the Tribunal, to file a list of witnesses and a short summary of the evidence to be given by each of them at the hearing of the interim application. Dr Zaghloul did not adduce any independent witness evidence from a plumber or registered builder in support of his contentions.

Disposition of the interim application

The applicant in this proceeding adduced probative evidence in support of its position that structural alterations to Lot 9 have taken place without the approval of the Strata Company. No evidence was adduced by the respondent to the contrary. Consequently, I am satisfied that the respondent may have carried out unauthorised structural alterations to Lot 9 in contravention of s 87(2) of the ST Act. Further, based on the evidence of Mr Roberson, which I accept, I am satisfied that the fire rating of the front entry door of Lot 9 may have been affected by the installation of a non-fire-rated door handle.

The respondent tendered in evidence a text message that Dr Zaghloul had received from the owner of Lot 7 before the application was commenced in the Tribunal.[44] The respondent contends that the text message supports a finding that water ingress to Lot 7 is no longer a problem and, therefore, an inspection of Lot 9 is unwarranted.[45] However, I heard evidence that, as recently as 13 August 2025, the owner of Lot 7 wrote to the strata manager of the Scheme stating that repairs to the laundry ceiling needed to be redone because there was water leaking through the ceiling.[46] Further, Mr Kolk gave evidence that the silicone applied in the laundry of Lot 9 might be preventing water egress to Lot 7 but that it is not necessarily a long-term solution and warrants investigation. He also considered that the shower area of Lot 9, which permits water to track to the balcony of Lot 9, is responsible for the water seen cascading from the spigot in the video taken on the morning of the hearing.
[44] Exhibit 3, page 22.
[45] ts 89, 27 August 2025.
[46] Exhibit 1, page 122.
The respondent's representative, Dr Zaghloul, referred the Tribunal to an email from a plumber dated 7 July 2025 who had inspected Lot 9 and observed water behind the fridge which was running under the tiles into the bathroom area.[47] However, Dr Zaghloul did not call the plumber to give evidence and, consequently, the weight that I can give to the email is limited. Nor did Dr Zaghloul call any other licensed plumber or registered builder to support his position that structural alterations to Lot 9 were not the source of water egress from the lot to Lot 7 or other lots in the Scheme.
[47] Exhibit 1, page 159.
Dr Zaghloul also referred the Tribunal to text messages that he had sent and received on 21 July 2025 which showed that he had provided access to Lot 9 and had been advised by the strata manager that the plumber had 'seen what they needed to see and we now just await their report'.[48] Whilst I accept that the respondent has co-operated with the applicant to provide access to Lot 9 on several occasions in the past, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, it is apparent that water egress from the lot remains an issue of concern for other lot owners.
[48] Exhibit 1, page 82.
Despite the prior inspections conducted by the applicant's contractors, I am satisfied that the application for an interim order to compel access to Lot 9 should be granted because:
(a)First, the circumstances of the case are urgent by reason of possible water egress from Lot 9 to other lots in the Scheme and safety concerns about the adequacy of the fire rating of the front entry door of Lot 9.
(b)Second, when Dr Zaghloul previously granting access to the applicant to inspect Lot 9, he limited the time for the applicant's contractors to carry out the inspection and refused to allow them to take photographs. Based on the uncontested evidence of Mr Kolk, which I accept, I find that the source of water egress from Lot 9 warrants further investigation.
(c)Third, there is a serious question to be tried in the substantive proceeding, namely, whether the respondent has carried out structural alterations to Lot 9 in contravention of s 87(2) of the ST Act.
(d)Finally, access to Lot 9 is for the purposes of allowing representatives of the applicant to inspect internal works to the lot and to take photographs, both of which are relatively benign activities. The inspection is necessary for the applicant to determine if Lot 9 is the source of water egress to other lots in the Scheme. If temporary access to Lot 9 is denied, there is the potential for the applicant and lot owners to suffer harm and loss from moisture damage to the Scheme building which I consider outweighs any inconvenience to the respondent in granting relief. Consequently, I find that the balance of convenience favours the applicant.
For these reasons, I will allow the application and make an order pursuant to s 200(1)(m) of the ST Act and s 201(1) of the ST Act granting the applicant access to Lot 9, on an interim basis of 3 months, to enable the Strata Company to inspect the lot for the purposes of investigating whether water ingress to other lots in the Scheme emanates from Lot 9, and to determine whether the front entry door to Lot 9 complies with current fire standards.
The applicant seeks access to Lot 9, on a temporary basis, for the purposes of carrying out a non-invasive inspection and to take photographs, which I consider are activities that are unlikely to cause harm to the respondent's property. Having regard to the nature and purpose of the inspection, I do not consider that requiring the applicant to give an undertaking as to damages is necessary in the circumstances of this case.
Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, I am satisfied that the attendees permitted to inspect Lot 9 should extend to a licensed plumber, water leak detection contractors, building consultants and fire experts (order 3).
The respondent opposed the attendance at the inspection by representatives of the CoO and the strata manager and, as the applicant did not object to this course, I have included this limitation in order 4. For the sake of clarity, order 4 does not prevent the applicant's solicitors from attending Lot 9 to co-ordinate the inspection by the attendees listed in order 3.
To assist in identifying the possible source of water egress from Lot 9, I will make an order, consistent with the minute prepared by the applicant's solicitors, that the attendees for the inspection must prepare a report on their findings and on the scope of any remediation works if required. The attendees are also permitted to take photographs for the purpose of preparing their reports to the Strata Company.
Finally, to ensure that the inspection is at a convenient time to the respondent, I will make an order requiring the applicant to give Dr Zaghloul, as representative of the respondent, 48 hours' notice of the inspection time.

Conclusion

In a proceeding under the ST Act, the Tribunal may make an interim order if satisfied that, by reason of the urgent circumstances of the case, it should do so. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, including the balance of convenience which favours the applicant, I am satisfied that the interim application to compel access to Lot 9 should be granted.

Orders

The Tribunal orders:
1.The interim application is allowed.
2.From the date of this order until 27 November 2025 pursuant to s 200(2)(m) and s 201(1) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the respondent through its director, Dr Hassan Zaghloul, grants the applicant, The Owners of Mill Point Strata Scheme 11391, subject to orders 3, 4, 5 and 6, access to Lot 9 being Lot 9 on Strata Scheme 11391 to enable the strata company representatives to inspect the lot for the purposes of investigating:
(a)whether the water ingress to other lots within the scheme emanates from Lot 9; and
(b)whether the entry door to Lot 9 complies with fire standards.

3.The attendees for the inspection to include:
(a)a licensed plumber;
(b)water leak detection contractors;
(c)building consultants; and
(d)fire experts.

4.The attendees for the inspection are not to include representatives of the Council of Owners or the Strata Manager.
5.The attendees for the inspection will:
(a)prepare a report as to their findings;
(b)prepare a report and scope of remediation works, if any; and
(c)be permitted to take photographs for the purpose of their reports to the strata company.

6.The respondent must allow the inspection of Lot 9, referred to in these orders, on the applicant giving the respondent 48 hours' notice.
7.The matter is listed for a directions hearing at 12 noon on 3 October 2025 at 565 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia.

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