SAJE and THE OWNERS OF 36B THIRD AVENUE MOUNT LAWLEY STRATA PLAN 21602 [2026] WASAT 64

[2026] WASAT 64 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA) CITATION : SAJE and THE OWNERS OF 36B THIRD AVENUE MOUNT LAWLEY STRATA PLAN 21602 [2026] WASAT 64 MEMBER : MR E CADE, MEMBER HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 28 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 788 of 2025 BETWEEN : ELIANA SAJE First Applicant LISA SAJE Second Applicant AND THE OWNERS OF 36B THIRD AVENUE MOUNT LAWLEY STRATA PLAN 21602 Respondent Catchwords: Whether applicants should be granted leave to withdraw a proceeding with no order made to dismiss the proceeding - Whether a proceeding is misconceived - Whether a proceeding is an abuse of process -- 1 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 2 Legislation: State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 46, s 46(2), s 47, s 47(1)(c), s 49, s 60(2) Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 135(2), s 145(1)(d), s 197(4) Result: Application dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: First Applicant : N/A Second Applicant : N/A Respondent : N/A Solicitors: First Applicant : N/A Second Applicant : N/A Respondent : N/A Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Efficient Building Team Pty Ltd and Perth Recruitment Services Pty Ltd [2023] WASAT 37 Legal Services and Complaints Committee and McCardle [No 2] [2023] WASAT 131, 16 Saje [2026] WASAT 27 Saje [2026] WASAT 62 Saje and The Owners of 36B Third Avenue Mt Lawley Strata Plan 21602 [2025] WASAT 61 -- 2 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: 1 Eliana Saje and Lisa Saje are owners as joint tenants of lot 3 on Strata Plan 21602 (strata scheme). The strata scheme comprises a two-storey building situated in Mount Lawley containing four ground floor residential units (lots 1 to 4) and four first floor residential units (lots 5 to 8) along with common property. 2 On 14 November 2025 Eliana Saje (first applicant) lodged an application under s 197(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act) for the resolution of a scheme dispute (this proceeding). On 24 November 2025 Lisa Saje (second applicant) was joined to this proceeding as the second applicant. The respondent to this proceeding is named by the first applicant as The Owners of 36B Third Avenue And [sic] Mount Lawley Strata Plan 21602. 3 It is clear the first applicant has made a mistake with the name of the respondent which it is now necessary to correct. The respondent's proper name is The Owners of 36B Third Avenue Mount Lawley Strata Plan 21602 (respondent). I will make an order that the respondent's name is corrected. 4 With her application, the first applicant lodged a statement of orders sought (which are now also sought by the second applicant) numbered 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4 and 5. This statement also sets out five grounds associated with the orders sought numbered 1 through to 5. 5 At a directions hearing held on 23 December 2025 the applicants made an oral application to withdraw grounds numbered 3 and 4. At that directions hearing I gave leave to the applicants to amend their application in this way and the orders sought numbered 3 and 4 and the grounds numbered 3 and 4 were, by orders made on 23 December 2025, withdrawn (but not dismissed). 6 It is useful to set out the remaining grounds and orders sought by the applicants in this proceeding: Orders sought 1. Order be made that the alleged strata management contracts of 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 with Southern Strata Services (Southern) were invalid, and the purported contract-to-be of 2025-2026 is, or will be, invalid. 2. Interim orders under s 201 under the ST-Act: URGENT! -- 3 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 4 a. Order be made to suspend the purported contract of 2025-2026 until the Tribunal makes its decision in the matter; or the strata company accepts the purported contract is invalid, which they know anyway, and engages another strata manager. b. Zoe Maxwell not to claim to third parties and to instruct all Southern employees not to claim to third parties that Zoe Maxwell or Southern has a management contract with the strata company until the Tribunal makes its decision in the matter; or the strata company accepts the purported contract is invalid, which they know anyway, and engages another strata manager. c. SC to immediately direct Zoe Maxwell to stop her alleged 'debt collection' from the applicants. *OR, order be made that Zoe Maxwell is to stop the 'debt collection', if an interim order can include a non-party. 3. … 4. … 5. An order be made that the alleged 'EGM' vote of September 2020 and the amount of $9,271 the applicants were forced to pay was unlawful and illegal. Grounds for orders sought Order 1 2023-2024 - Breached s 145(1)(d) of the ST-Act and its own Term of duration. - It was fraudulent, which is an offence under the Criminal Code Compilation Act WA; the respondents lodged a fraudulent contract document carrying the signatures of Zoe Maxwell, Christine Bevans and Wayne Marriott. The contract purported to be a 'periodical on-going contract'. - It was inconsistent with what the strata company elected at the 'AGM' of November 2023. - It breached the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) requirements for GST, which resulted in the alleged strata manager's tax games with the ATO. - It relied on Zoe Maxwell as a voluntary strata manager after the expiry of the previous contract on 4 October 2023, yet -- 4 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 5 Zoe Maxwell could not be a voluntary strata manager under s 3 of the ST Act. 2024-2025 - The alleged but fraudulent contract of 2023-2024 was still in force. - S 145(1)(d) of the ST-Act; breached its own Term of duration. - It breached the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) requirements for GST, which resulted in the alleged strata manager's tax games with the ATO. - For the 'AGM' on 2 September 2024 … o … the strata company did not provide to the applicants meeting documents required under s127(1), (2) and 3; s 129(1) and (2), as well as s 216(4). o … it breached s 135(2) as well as bylaw 4(1) in Schedule 1. o The failure was not an accidental omission under s 129(2), (3), since the secretary Wayne Marriott did not respond to two emails and the treasurer Harry Bigelman to one email from Eliana Saje requesting those documents in February 2025. Eliana Saje finally got the agenda and minutes on 23 April 2025 from Wayne Marriott, after applying for them under s 108 and 109 and saying that she will request a penalty from the Tribunal, if the strata company does not give her the documents, over 8 months after the AGM was held. As a result of the above, all decisions made at the 'AGM' were null and void; s 129 (2) and (3), and the alleged contract is invalid and of no legal consequence. 2025-2026 - In matter no CC435/2024, Eliana Saje gave witness on 10 November 2025, and said the applicants know nothing about a management contract for 2025-2026, because the strata company is not letting them know about an AGM or a contract. The strata company's financial year is from July to end of June. However, the applicants believe the strata company will make, or has already made, a new contract with Southern without letting the applicants know, because the strata company needs invoices paid. -- 5 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 6 - The interim order sought under 2(c), below, provides good grounds for thinking the strata company already has a contract with Zoe Maxwell's Southern Strata Services. - In the document dated 25 August 2025, lodged with the Tribunal in CC435/2024 and served to the respondents, the applicants wrote: The alleged and fraudulent contract of 2023-2024, purported to be a periodical contract, is still in force; had it been terminated, the owners would have had to be notified. If the strata company seeks to rely on the commencement and expiry dates of the 2023-2024 contract, the remaining 6 days (NB; it expired on 1 September 2025) will not suffice to call and hold an AGM. If the strata company seeks to rely on *And ongoing yearly until either party terminates the agreement giving 3 months written notice*, the AGM cannot go ahead, because the provision breaches s 145 (1)(d) of the ST-Act. The strata company cannot ignore either the dates or the provision in Italics, because they are in the contract, despite contradicting each other. The financial or other strata company documents prepared by Southern cannot be used, because they are unauthorised documents, with Southern not having a valid contract in 2023-2024 and thereby not being in possession of strata company documents. The result: knowing all the above, the strata company is likely to have already arranged an 'AGM' without informing the applicants, and like in September 2024, all decisions and resolutions will be null and void for that reason alone. - But: - The alleged fraudulent contract of 2023-2024 is still in force. - S 145(1)(d) of the ST-Act; likely to breach its own Term of duration. - Likely to breach the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) requirements fort GST, which is likely to result in the alleged strata manager's tax games with the ATO. - Likely to breach s 135(2) as well as bylaw 4(1) in Schedule 1. - It is likely to contain unlawful terms and breaches the ST-Act for what a strata manager can do. - Fraud under Criminal Code Compilation Act WA. -- 6 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 7 - Documents used will be unauthorised. Order 2 Interim orders a, b The situation is unbearable, and the respondent is fully aware it is breaching the enabling Act many times over. The strata company is going to be wasting money in unlawful fees, and it must comply with the enabling Act. Interim order c Out of the blue, on 13 November 2025, Eliana Saje received a text message from a debt collector alleging the applicants owe Southern Strata Services the amount of $7,535,40. We owe Southern absolutely nothing, and we have not tried to not pay levies. We have asked the last couple of years for lawful levies, and we refuse to pay unlawful levies, because we have the right to pay levies in compliance with s 100(1)(a) of the ST-Act. We have been paying, but not the way Maxwell wants, and she is a highly dishonest person displaying symptoms of pathological lying. However, the text message suggests that something has happened between the strata company and Zoe Maxwell. The text message content is not only unlawful but illegal, and the strata company must distance itself from such crime. Order 3 … Order 4 … Order 5 The alleged 'EGM' vote in September 2020 was unlawful and illegal, and the strata company forced the applicants to pay the illegal amount of $9,271 with illegal menaces and threats. 7 At the directions hearing on 23 December 2025 the respondent indicated it would apply for orders to strike out this proceeding on the basis the grounds and orders sought in it had been finalised in one or more earlier proceedings within this Tribunal. Consequently, I made orders requiring the respondent to lodge its strike out application by 21 January 2026 and for the applicants to lodge their response -- 7 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 8 by 11 February 2026. I also made an order the strike out application is to be determined entirely on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). 8 On 5 January 2026 the applicants requested leave to withdraw this proceeding. The grounds the applicants gave were: In CC 435/2024, no orders were made for the filing of submissions before the hearing on 10 November 2025. The applicants had complied with all orders made. On 10 November, the hearing was adjourned to 23 December 2025, but the Tribunal refused for parties to file submissions, which the parties had not yet been able to do. Consequently, the applicants commenced CC 788/2025, in a desperate attempt to be able to file submissions and have the matters heard; submissions are an essential part of procedure in bringing matters to the Tribunal. Because the above, the application is unnecessary and futile on the grounds of the Tribunal's seemingly arbitrary and illogical orders in CC 435/2024, which has also resulted in further financial burden for the applicants in Landgate and Tribunal fees. 9 On 9 January 2026 the respondent sought additional time in which to lodge its strike out application. 10 On 19 January 2026 I made orders vacating the orders I made on 23 December 2025 relating to the lodging of strike out submissions by the parties. In their place I made orders requiring the applicants to lodge submissions by 9 February 2026 as to why they should be granted leave to withdraw this proceeding with no order made under s 46 of the SAT Act to dismiss the proceeding. I also made orders requiring the respondent to lodge responsive submissions by 2 March 2026. Finally, I made an order that, subject to any further order, the matter is to be determined entirely on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the SAT Act. 11 On 26 January 2026 the applicants lodged a submission with the Tribunal stating, amongst other things, that: … The applicants will not play this game of strike-out and unfair procedure, and the applicants are not bothered if or when CC 788/2025 is struck out or not[.] 12 On 4 March 2026 the respondent lodged its submission on the applicant's withdrawal application. 13 On 5 March 2026 I reserved my decision in the withdrawal application. -- 8 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 9 14 On 31 March 2026 Deputy President Jackson published reasons in Saje [2026] WASAT 27 (Saje 2026). These reasons concerned an application lodged by Eliana Saje on 19 February 2026 under s 49 of the SAT Act to commence a proceeding in which she sought three orders from the Tribunal for the resolution of a scheme dispute under s 197(4) of the ST Act (the proposed proceeding). The proposed respondent to the proposed proceeding is the same respondent in this proceeding. 15 It was necessary for Eliana Saje to make an application under s 49 of the SAT Act for leave to commence a proceeding because the three orders sought and the associated grounds for the orders in the proposed proceeding were substantially similar to three orders sought and associated grounds in proceeding CC 435/2024 which I had struck out on 1 July 2025: Saje and The Owners of 36B Third Avenue Mt Lawley Strata Plan 21602 [2025] WASAT 61 (Saje 2025). Proceeding CC 435/2024 was an application by the same applicants as in this proceeding for the resolution of a scheme dispute under s 197(4) of the SAT Act. That proceeding named eight respondents being the respondent in this proceeding as well as each of the other seven lot owners in the strata scheme. 16 Deputy President Jackson refused Eliana Saje leave to commence the proposed proceeding under s 49 of the SAT Act on the basis 'the interests of justice 'would hardly be served' by granting leave and permitting the same applicant to pursue a proceeding of the same kind which has previously been struck out …': Saje 2026 [61]. 17 The orders sought and associated grounds in this proceeding appear to be similar to orders sought and associated grounds in CC 435/2024 which I had struck out on 1 July 2025. In my view, for the reasons given by Deputy President Jackson in Saje 2026, this proceeding will be misconceived or an abuse of process under s 47(1) of the SAT Act if the orders sought and grounds within it are identical to or substantially similar to the orders sought and associated grounds struck out in CC 435/2024. 18 Relevant to this proceeding, Dr Saje sought the following orders in proceeding CC 435/2024:1 1 Saje 2025 [11]. -- 9 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 10 Orders sought 1. CoO terminate the alleged management contract immediately, because it is invalid.2 Because the strata manager repeatedly contravenes the Act as well as the contract, s 151 also applies for the termination of the contract. 2. CoO directs strata manager to return to the strata company all strata company funds unlawfully received from the strata company or unlawfully withdrawn from the strata company account. 3. CoO directs strata manager to stop charging unlawful levies, and CoO resolves the problems with unlawful levies in breach of Act provisions, as approved at the AGM on 09/11/2023. 4. … 5. … 6. CoO must not make another contract with Zoe Maxwell and her strata services again. 7. … 8. CoO must take legal action against strata manager. 9. … 10. … 19 Relevant to this proceeding, Dr Saje relied on the following grounds in proceeding CC 435/2024:3 Grounds for orders sought 1. The contract has fees without the required GST charge, and the contract is a fabricated modification of the original one. All evidence is under CC99 of 2024. CoO is required under to perform in compliance with the Act, and it cannot do otherwise. 2. Grounds and evidence are under CC99 of 2024. CoO is required to perform in compliance with the Act, and it cannot do otherwise. 3. Evidence is under CC99 of 2024. CoO is required to perform in compliance with the Act, and it cannot do otherwise. 2 I understand Dr Saje to mean the Council of Owners of the Strata Company when she uses the expression 'CoO'. 3 Saje 2025 [12]. -- 10 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 11 4. … 5. ... 6. Every contract the strata company has had with the strata manager has been invalid and the strata manager repeatedly breaches the Act and contracts. There is no future on this basis. 7. CoO is responsible for strata company complying with the Act, and they cannot allow this kind of conduct to continue and strata company funds to be misappropriated. 8. They must hold the strata manager accountable and protect the strata company's interests and funds. But they have already fabricated a fake management contract and refused to take action against the strata manager under CC99 of 2024, for which reason the applicant has filed CC100 of 2024 under s 198. 9. … 10. … 20 I have compared the orders sought and associated grounds in this proceeding to determine whether they are identical to or substantially similar to the orders sought and associated grounds which I struck out in proceeding CC 435/2024. On conducting this comparison with respect to the orders sought in the proceedings I find: (1) order 1 sought in this proceeding is substantially similar to order 1 sought in proceeding CC 435/2024 - which was struck out on 1 July 2025: Saje 2025 [11]; (2) order 2a and 2b sought in this proceeding are applications for interim orders pending a final hearing as to order 1 in this proceeding. For the purposes of this proceeding, they are therefore subsumed within order 1; (3) order 2c sought in this proceeding is an application for an interim order pending a final hearing as to order 5 in this proceeding. For the purposes of this proceeding, it is therefore subsumed within order 5; and (4) order 5 sought in this proceeding is substantially similar to order 3 sought in proceeding CC 435/2024 - which was struck out on 1 July 2025: Saje 2025 [84] and [92]. -- 11 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 12 21 On conducting this comparison with respect to the grounds set out in each of the proceedings I find: (1) ground 1 in this proceeding is substantially similar to grounds 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 in proceeding CC 435/2024 - which were struck out on 1 July 2025: Saje 2025 [51] - [60]; and (2) ground 5 in this proceeding is substantially similar to ground 3 in proceeding CC 435/2024 - which was struck out on 1 July 2025: Saje 2025 [82] - [97]. 22 For completeness I observe that, as discussed in Saje 2025 [51] - [60] and [82] - [97], both orders 1 and 5 sought in this proceeding are also substantially similar to orders sought by Eliana Saje in CC 99/2024 and in CC 787/2022. 23 Proceeding CC 99/2024 was an application made by Eliana Saje for the resolution of a scheme dispute under s 197(4) of the SAT Act with the respondents being the seven other owners of lots in the strata scheme. On 4 October 2024 this Tribunal (differently constituted) dismissed after a final hearing these aspects of Eliana Saje's application in CC 99/2024: Saje 2025 [82] - [97]. 24 Proceeding CC 787/2022 was an application made by Eliana Saje for the resolution of a scheme dispute under s 197(4) of the SAT Act with the respondent being the same respondent in this proceeding. On 14 September 2022 the Tribunal made orders by consent granting Eliana Saje leave to withdraw the proceeding and the proceeding was dismissed pursuant to s 46(2) of the SAT Act: Saje 2025 [51] - [60]. 25 As I indicated above, I have considered whether the applicants in this proceeding are the same persons as the applicants in CC 435/2024. It is clear to me that they are the same persons. I have also considered whether the first applicant is the same person as the applicant in Saje 2026, CC 99/2024 and CC 787/2022. It is clear to me that she is the same person. It is also clear to me that the respondents in CC 435/2024, CC 99/2024 and CC 787/2024 are some combination of the same respondent and the other lot owners in the same strata scheme. 26 I am now faced with the question whether to grant leave to the applicants to withdraw (but not to dismiss) this proceeding on the basis it comprises orders sought and associated grounds which have been struck out by me on 1 July 2025 in Saje 2025. In reaching my decision on this issue I have considered the following four matters: -- 12 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 13 27 First, the substantive orders sought and grounds in this proceeding were: (1) dismissed after a final hearing (CC 99/2024); (2) struck out under s 47(1) of the SAT Act (CC 435/2024); (3) been refused leave under s 49 of the SAT Act to commence a proceeding (Saje 2026); and (4) been dismissed by consent (CC 787/2022). 28 Second, due to the history set out at [27] of these reasons this proceeding should never have been commenced in this Tribunal: Saje [2026] WASAT 62 [20]. 29 Third, the applicants have failed to comply with an order of this Tribunal in that they have declined to lodge submissions as to why this proceeding should not be dismissed and they have also said they 'are not bothered if or when [this proceeding] is struck out or not'. These acts of the applicants show to me they have no real interest in maintaining this proceeding. 30 Fourth, the impact on the respondent of dealing with repeated applications which rely on the same grounds and which seek the same orders has been significant. The respondent, in its submission lodged 9 January 2026 said: After so many cases spanning five years, the respondents recognise we are not in a position to continue. It has been taxing on our time, we are unable to sell our assets if we wish due to these ongoing cases, we are now at a financial loss, as the Applicants have not paid their strata fees for some time, and overall, we are simply tired. The Respondents request a delay in the submission of all outstanding cases. We will seek legal representation, as it is clear we are unable to continue with these cases. While this will be costly for the seven Respondents, we are at a breaking point and cannot continue with the endless relitigating of orders already heard by the Tribunal. 31 In my view, for these reasons, I should not grant the applicants leave to withdraw this proceeding. Rather, I am convinced it should now be struck out as misconceived or as an abuse of process. This is because not only should the proceeding never have been commenced but now that it has been commenced it brings the administration of justice into disrepute because it attempts to undermine the principle of finality in -- 13 of 14 -- [2026] WASAT 64 Page 14 litigation and is a collateral attack on an earlier final order or final orders of this Tribunal: Efficient Building Team Pty Ltd and Perth Recruitment Services Pty Ltd [2023] WASAT 37 at [30] - [37] referred to in Saje 2025 [18]. It also clearly causes oppression to the respondent because it constitutes an attempt by the same applicants to run the same case against the same respondent when that case has been previously dismissed, struck out or has been the subject of a final order after a final hearing: Legal Services and Complaints Committee and McCardle [No 2] [2023] WASAT 131 at [117] to [126] referred to in Saje 2025 [16]. 32 For all these reasons, I am satisfied this proceeding is both misconceived under s 47(1)(a) of the SAT Act and is an abuse of process under s 47(1)(c) of the SAT Act. However, in my view it is sufficient that I order this proceeding is struck out because it is misconceived despite it also being an abuse of process. 33 I am therefore of the view that I should not give the applicants leave to withdraw this proceeding under s 46(1) of the SAT Act but that I should order it struck out under s 47(2) of the SAT Act as misconceived. For the purpose of s 47(3) of the SAT Act I note that I am a legally qualified member. Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. The name of the respondent is amended to The Owners of 36B Third Avenue Mount Lawley Strata Plan 21602. 2. The applicants are not given leave to withdraw the proceeding. 3. Pursuant to s 47(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the proceeding is struck out, as it is misconceived. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MR E Cade, MEMBER 28 MAY 2026 -- 14 of 14 --