SAJE [2026] WASAT 62

[2026] WASAT 62 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 2004 (WA) CITATION : SAJE [2026] WASAT 62 MEMBER : PRESIDENT GLANCY HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 27 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : SAT Act 4 of 2026 BETWEEN : ELIANA SAJE Applicant Catchwords: Application for leave to commence proceeding after dismissal under s 49 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) - Attempts to commence proceedings of the same kind - Where proceeding was dismissed on merits - Application misconceived - Statutory bases for dismissal in the State Administrative Tribunal Legislation: State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 46, s 46(1), s 46(2), s 46(3), s 46(4), s 46(5), s 47, s 47(1), s 47(1)(c), s 47(2), s 47(3), s 47(4), s 48, s 49, s 60(2) Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 197(4) Result: Application dismissed -- 1 of 7 -- [2026] WASAT 62 Page 2 Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : N/A Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Saje and The Owners of 36B Third Avenue, Mt Lawley Strata Plan 21602 [2025] WASAT 61 -- 2 of 7 -- [2026] WASAT 62 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 Dr Saje has made an application under s 49 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) for leave to commence a proceeding which has been resolved in this Tribunal in matter CC 99 of 2024. It involves a claim that a strata company be ordered to repay to her a special contribution levy which she paid in 2021. 2 Pursuant to s 49 of the SAT Act, where a proceeding has been dismissed or struck out under s 46, s 47 or s 48 of that Act, another proceeding of the same kind cannot be commenced before the Tribunal without leave of a judicial member. Outcome 3 For the reasons set out below, pursuant to s 47(1) and s 47(2) of the SAT Act, I dismiss Dr Saje's application made under s 49 of the SAT Act for leave to bring the proceeding because her application is misconceived. This is because, in making the order dismissing the application in respect of which Dr Saje wishes to bring fresh proceedings, the Tribunal dealt with the merits of the application and did not dismiss it under s 46, s 47 or s 48 of the SAT Act. As a result, s 49 of the SAT Act does not apply. Determined on the Documents 4 On 18 May 2026, Dr Saje sent to the Tribunal a nine page document which is a request for leave under s 49 of the SAT Act and submissions and documents on which she relies in support of the application. It was not lodged as an application and did not have a matter number. The Tribunal took the correspondence as an application under s 49 of the SAT Act and has given it matter number SAT Act 4 of 2026. 5 I have determined the application on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the SAT Act. It was not necessary to hear further from Dr Saje or at all from the proposed respondent to the application in order to determine the matter. -- 3 of 7 -- [2026] WASAT 62 Page 4 SAT Act s 46, s 47, s 48 and s 49 6 Section 49 of the SAT Act, pursuant to which Dr Saje brings this application, allows a judicial member of the Tribunal to grant leave for an applicant to commence a proceeding of the same kind in relation to the same matter as one which has been dismissed or struck out under s 46, s 47 or s 48 of the SAT Act. Absent that leave, the subsequent proceeding cannot be commenced. 7 Subsection 46(1) of the SAT Act authorises the Tribunal to give leave to an applicant to withdraw a proceeding or part of a proceeding. Subsection 46(2) provides that where leave has been given under s 46(1) the Tribunal may make an order dismissing or striking out all, or part of the proceeding. Subsection 46(3) permits the Tribunal to make an order dismissing or striking out all or part of a proceeding for want of prosecution. An order dismissing all or part of a proceeding for want of prosecution may only be made by a legally qualified member of the Tribunal.1 Orders under s 46 of the SAT Act may be made on the application of a party or on the Tribunal's own initiative.2 8 Section 47 of the SAT Act empowers the Tribunal to dismiss or strike out a proceeding or part of a proceeding or make other appropriate orders where it believes that a proceeding is: (a) frivolous, vexatious or lacking in substance; or (b) being used for an improper purpose; or (c) otherwise an abuse of process. 9 The power to make such orders is exercisable only by a legally qualified member.3 The Tribunal may make such orders on the application of a party or on its own initiative.4 10 Section 48 of the SAT Act allows the Tribunal to dismiss or strike out a proceeding or part of a proceeding where the Tribunal is satisfied that a party to the proceeding is conducting the proceeding in a way that causes unnecessary disadvantage to another party. 1 SAT Act, s 46(4). 2 SAT Act, s 46(5). 3 SAT Act, s 47(3). 4 SAT Act, s 47(4). -- 4 of 7 -- [2026] WASAT 62 Page 5 Tribunal's previous decisions in relation to claim for repayment of the special contribution levy 11 Dr Saje owns, together with her daughter, a lot within a strata scheme in Mount Lawley. Dr Saje has made many applications in the Tribunal which relate to issues arising between her and either the strata company or individual owners of other lots within the strata scheme. Matter CC 99 of 2024, to which this application under s 49 relates, was heard and determined together with matters CC 43 of 2024 and CC 100 of 2024. The Tribunal's reasons for the decision in those matters were given orally on 4 October 2024. 12 In the hearing itself, and in the reasons for decision which canvassed each of those three applications, the orders sought by Dr Saje in matter CC 99 of 2024 were referred to as 'order 4' and 'order 5' respectively. 13 In matter CC 99 of 2024, commenced under s 197(4) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) Dr Saje sought, among other orders,5 orders that: (1) Ms Bevans (the owner of lot 7 in the strata scheme) repay to the strata company the amount of $14,280 'for the wilful destruction of strata company property on lot 7' (order 4); and (2) the amount of $9,271 in a special contribution levy which she was forced to pay to the strata company by extortion be repaid to her (order 5). 14 The order made by the Tribunal in matter CC 99 of 2024 was that the application was dismissed. No reference was made to that decision being made on any of the bases set out in s 46, s 47 or s 48 of the SAT Act as would be expected when any of those sections provided the basis for the dismissal of an application. 15 It is clear that at least in respect of the application for proposed order 5 the matter was not dismissed under any of s 46, s 47 or s 48 of the SAT Act. Rather, the Member dealt with the merits of the application, accepted the evidence given by the respondents and found that all of the lot owners paid the special levy which had been approved at an extraordinary general meeting and was ratified at subsequent meetings of the scheme. The Tribunal ultimately held that there was no 5 Those other orders included, for example orders preventing certain persons from holding positions on the Council of Owners. They are not relevant for present purposes. -- 5 of 7 -- [2026] WASAT 62 Page 6 probative evidence that the applicant should be reimbursed the sum sought and, therefore, declined to make 'order 5'.6 16 In her application, Dr Saje describes the Tribunal's reasons for dismissing the order sought as 'unsatisfactory' and sets out the findings which the Tribunal made which she says were 'wrong' or 'irrelevant'. Indeed, in the opening of her application Dr Saje states that the decision was 'wrong at law, unfair and results in considerable financial loss' to herself and her daughter. 17 On 15 May 2026 Dr Saje wrote to the Tribunal stating that she had no choice but to appeal the decision. I am unaware of whether an appeal has been commenced or whether Dr Saje has decided to pursue this application in lieu of an appeal. 18 In the reasons for decision in Saje and The Owners of 36B Third Avenue, Mt Lawley Strata Plan 21602 [2025] WASAT 61, a decision in relation to a strike out application brought by the respondents in other applications brought by Dr Saje (being matters CC 435 of 2024 and CC 736 of 2024), the Tribunal, differently constituted, determined that certain parts of each of those applications ought be struck out on the basis that these raised claims which had already been determined by the Tribunal in matter CC 99 of 2024. The Tribunal determined that ground 3 and proposed order 3 in matter CC 435 of 2024 related to the same subject matter as ground 5 and proposed order 5 in CC 99 of 2024, which was that the strata manager return to the applicant the amount of $9,271 which was paid as a levy by the applicant on 16 February 2021. The Tribunal then determined that because the issue raised in ground 3 and proposed order 3 in CC 435 of 2024 had been finally decided by the dismissal of application CC 99 of 2024, allowing the matter to be relitigated in CC 435 of 2024 would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and would constitute an abuse of process.7 The Tribunal therefore struck out ground 3 (among other grounds) as an abuse of process under s 47(1)(c) of the SAT Act.8 19 That decision also supports the finding that the decision in relation to the proposed repayment of the contribution levy was determined by the Tribunal in CC 99 of 2024. 6 ts 4 - 5 and 8, 4 October 2024. 7 Saje and The Owners of 36B Third Avenue, Mt Lawley Strata Plan 21602 [2025] WASAT 61 (Saje) at [92], [95] - [96]. 8 Saje at [97]. -- 6 of 7 -- [2026] WASAT 62 Page 7 Conclusion 20 It is clear that Dr Saje's application for an order for the repayment of the special contribution levy was finally determined by the Tribunal on its merits on 4 October 2024 and that a subsequent attempt to relitigate that issue was struck out as an abuse of process. Given that the claim for an order for repayment of the special contribution levy was not dismissed under any of sections 46, 47 or 48 of the SAT Act, I cannot make the order sought under s 49 of the SAT Act. 21 That being the case, application for leave under s 49 is therefore misconceived and will be dismissed. Order The Tribunal orders: 1. Pursuant to s 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the application for leave under s 49 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) is dismissed as misconceived. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. WH Associate to the President 27 MAY 2026 -- 7 of 7 --