CHEEMA and SIKH ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2025] WASAT 126 (S)

[2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATIONS ACT 2015 (WA) CITATION : CHEEMA and SIKH ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2025] WASAT 126 (S) MEMBER : MR E CADE, MEMBER HEARD : 24 FEBRUARY 2026 DELIVERED : 22 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 137 of 2025 BETWEEN : JASKIRAN KAUR CHEEMA First Applicant RAJINDER SINGH BASSI Second Applicant PUSHPINDER SINGH Third Applicant RANI KAUR SAMRA Fourth Applicant BALJIT KAUR SIDHU Fifth Applicant DALJIT SINGH DHILLON Sixth Applicant PARAMJIT KAUR TUR Seventh Applicant ROWINDERJEET KAUR Eighth Applicant -- 1 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 2 AND SIKH ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Respondent FILE NO/S : CC 138 of 2025 BETWEEN : BALDEV SINGH BAGGA First Applicant LAKHBIR SINGH SIDHU Second Applicant DIDAR SINGH CHEEMA Third Applicant AMRITPAL SINGH Fourth Applicant AND SIKH ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Respondent FILE NO/S : CC 139 of 2025 BETWEEN : DEVRAJ SINGH Applicant AND SIKH ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Respondent FILE NO/S : CC 154 of 2025 BETWEEN : AMARJIT SINGH PABLA Applicant -- 2 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 3 AND SIKH ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) Respondent Catchwords: Application for costs - Whether appropriate to award costs - Respondents to pay a portion of costs claimed Legislation: Associations Incorporation Act 2015 (WA), State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87, s 87(1) State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 42A Result: Order for costs in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 No order for costs in CC 154 of 2025 Representation: CC 137 of 2025 Counsel: First Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Second Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Third Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Fourth Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Fifth Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Sixth Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Seventh Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Eighth Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Respondent : Mr A Sidhu -- 3 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 4 Solicitors: First Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Second Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Third Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Fourth Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Fifth Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Sixth Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Seventh Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Eighth Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Respondent : Rekhraj Legal CC 138 of 2025 Counsel: First Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Second Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Third Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Fourth Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Respondent : Mr A Sidhu Solicitors: First Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Second Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Third Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Fourth Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Respondent : Rekhraj Legal CC 139 of 2025 Counsel: Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Respondent : Mr A Sidhu Solicitors: Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Respondent : Rekhraj Legal -- 4 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 5 CC 154 of 2025 Counsel: Applicant : Mr PG McGowan Respondent : Mr A Sidhu Solicitors: Applicant : Equitas Lawyers Respondent : Rekhraj Legal Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Bejawn v The Sikh Association of Western Australia Inc [2023] WASC 152 Chiropractic Board of Australia and Ebtash [2020] WASAT 86 (S) Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Khosa [2020] WASAT 167 Medical Board of Australia and Tan [2022] WASAT 57 (S) Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58 Sivanpathakumar and The Management Council of Saiva Maha Sabai Of WA INC [2022] WASAT 96 (S) -- 5 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 6 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 The applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025, CC 139 of 2025 and CC 154 of 2025 (Applicants) by way of an application for costs under s 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) seek a costs order in their favour for the costs incurred by them in the substantive proceedings in this Tribunal. The Applicants seeks their legal costs in the amount of $98,542.32. The Respondent opposes the application. 2 The decision and reasons for decision in the substantive proceedings are set out in Cheema and Sikh Association of Western Australia [2025] WASAT 126 (Cheema). By way of background, the substantive proceedings were before the Tribunal within its original jurisdiction under s 182(1) of the Associations Incorporation Act 2015 (WA) (AI Act) for orders against the Respondent relating to the expulsion of the Applicants from membership of the Respondent. 3 Applications CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025, CC 139 of 2025 and CC 154 of 2025 (the applications) were heard together before me as a final hearing over 5 days between 5 and 12 August 2025. 4 The decisions I made in Cheema can be summarised as follows: 1. Each of the Applicants was, in substance, granted the relief they had sought in their respective application: Cheema [4], [98], [135], [172] and [197]; 2. Each of the Applicants was mostly successful with respect to the grounds raised by them that they were not properly expelled from the Respondent in accordance with the rules of the Respondent: Cheema [1] - [3], [23], [97], [103], [134], [140], [171], [176] and [196]; and 3. None of the Applicants was in any way successful with respect to the grounds raised by them that I should determine the merits of the grounds given by the Respondent for their expulsion from the Respondent or that I should inquire into whether members of the EXCO were motivated to pursue the expulsion of the Applicants for improper reasons: Cheema [21], [23] and [39]. -- 6 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 7 Principles relevant to the determination of a costs application 5 The starting point for the consideration of costs is s 87(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), which is that '[u]nless otherwise specified in [the SAT Act], the enabling Act [which is the AI Act], or an order of the Tribunal under [s 87 of the SAT Act], parties bear their own costs in a proceeding of the Tribunal'. 6 There is nothing in the Associations Incorporation Act 2015 (WA) (AI Act) which precludes the Tribunal from making a costs order under s 87 of the SAT Act. 7 An application for costs must, however, be made within 21 days of the orders to which the application relates being made by the Tribunal: r 42A State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA) (Rules). In this case, the orders to which the costs applications relate were made on 11 November 2025 and the costs applications were lodged with the Tribunal on 26 November 2025. The costs applications are therefore within the time allowed under the Rules. 8 This Tribunal (constituted by President Justice Pritchard, (as she then was) Senior Member, Ms P Le Miere and Senior Sessional Member, Dr P Winterton) said in Medical Board of Australia and Tan [2022] WASAT 57 (S) (Tan) the principles in relation to awards of costs under s 87(2) of the SAT Act are 'well established' [126]. These principles, as set out in Tan, are: 127 The starting point in relation to any application for costs in the Tribunal is that, subject to any contrary provision in an enabling Act, the parties to proceedings bear their own costs unless the Tribunal orders otherwise. However, the Tribunal has a discretion to order a party to pay all or any of the costs of another party. 128 The legal rationale for an order for costs under s 87(2) is that an order for costs is not to punish the person against whom the order is made, but to compensate or reimburse the person in whose favour it is made. Accordingly, even in the statutory context where the presumptive position is that no costs will be ordered, generally speaking, the question is 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 onus is on the party seeking an order in its favour. -- 7 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 8 129 The Tribunal's discretion in relation to the award of costs is a wide one. Nevertheless, it is exercised judiciously and not capriciously. … 135 In assessing costs, the Tribunal takes a 'robust and broad-brush approach' and bases its determination on what reasonable allowance should be made for the work necessarily done to bring the proceedings to a conclusion. 136 An assessment of costs should be approached in a broad fashion and should not descend into an inquiry into small items of expenditure. 137 Although the assessment of costs involves a relatively broad and robust approach, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the costs claimed are reasonable and necessary. The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the costs claimed are not excessive. Any costs awarded must be compensatory and not punitive in nature. 138 Furthermore, the Tribunal must explain why an award of costs is reasonable, and if so, in what amount. (footnotes omitted) 9 This Tribunal will apply these principles when determining this costs application. 10 As the Tribunal (differently constituted) observed in Sivanpathakumar and The Management Council of Saiva Maha Sabai Of WA INC [2022] WASAT 96 (S) (Sivanpathakumar (S)) at [18] - [20]: 18. 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. 19. 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.' 20. 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 -- 8 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 9 applicable costs determinations made by the Legal Costs Committee. (footnotes omitted) 11 Finally, with particular relevance to this costs application, the Tribunal in Sivanpathakumar (S) also said: 26. 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. 27 However, it is also equally important to note that Parliament intended that the Tribunal be an option of last resort for the determination of such disputes. This is because the Tribunal cannot determine a dispute for the purposes of s 182(1) of the AI Act unless the dispute cannot be resolved under the dispute resolution procedure of the incorporated association. Accordingly, if a party to a dispute jumps the gun and applies to the Tribunal before engaging in, or exhausting, the dispute resolution procedure of the incorporated association, then that party may be at risk of having a costs order made against them. (footnotes omitted) Issues 12 The issues to be determined by me in this costs application are: (a) whether I should exercise my discretion to make an order for costs to the Applicants; and (b) if so, the amount of those costs. The position of the parties 13 The Applicants rely on the following grounds in support of their costs applications: 1. My findings were made on the basis of matters conceded by the Respondent, which shows that the Respondent's opposition to the applications was groundless and indefensible; and 2. The Respondent knew or should have known that by admitting new members to the Respondent and bringing the number of members to the maximum permitted under its rules that it had placed itself in a position where it could not comply with its obligation under rule 22.3 to mediation in good faith with the -- 9 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 10 Applicants, which shows the Respondent wilfully disregarded the substantial demerits of its own position. 14 The consequence of this, the Applicant says, is that the Respondent frustrated the statutory purpose of the Tribunal so as justify an order for costs in favour of the Applicants. 15 The Respondent opposes the Applicants' application for costs on the basis that as its participation in the proceedings was reasonable such that no costs order should be made in the Applicants' favour. 16 In the alternative, the Respondent says that if I do make a costs order in favour of the Applicants that the costs claimed are excessive, and should be reduced at least to the extent that they are claiming costs for arguing that I should determine the merits of the grounds given by the Respondent for their expulsion from the Respondent or that I should inquire into whether members of the EXCO were motivated to pursue the expulsion of the Applicants for improper reasons. Should I exercise my discretion to make an order for costs to the Applicants 17 I said in Cheema at [38] the issues I need to determine are: 1. Does the Constitution require a show-cause notice to allege a contravention by the member of the Constitution and if so, did the notice allege a contravention by the member of the Constitution? 2. Was the expulsion notice given to the member given within the time required under the Constitution and if it was not given within the time required, whether the expulsion notice is invalid? 3. Were the Trustees permitted to postpone the holding of mediations in accordance with the request made by the applicants' solicitor's on 28 June 2024 and, if so, when should they have recommenced scheduling mediations? 4. Were the mediations held by the Trustees after the Applicants had commenced proceedings in the Tribunal valid mediations under r 8.2.(g) and r 22? 5. If at the date of a mediation held by the Trustees under r 8.2(g) and r 22 the number of members of the Association was the maximum number of members permitted under the rules, was the EXCO participating in good faith to settle the matter that is the subject of the mediation? -- 10 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 11 6. Were the outcomes of the mediations held by the Trustees outcomes which resolved the disputes between the applicants and SAWA? 18 I determined issue 2 for each of the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 on the basis of a chronology which was not in substantial dispute, although this is not to say that the parties were in total agreement about each item in the chronology. There were, in fact, some important differences between the Applicants and the Respondent, for example, as to whether the EXCO was required to consider and vote on a resolution on the expulsion of a member from the Respondent at a single meeting or whether it could do this over two separate meetings: Cheema [37], [38], [52] - [66], [117] - [125], [154] - [162] and [194] - [195]. 19 However, it is clear that even on the chronology contended by the Respondent that the expulsion notice given to each of the Applicants in CC 137 of 2022 was not given to them 'within 7 days after' the meeting at which the decision is made, as required by r 8.2(f), but rather was given to them within eight days after the relevant meeting: Cheema [52] - [66]. While the Respondent did argue that these expulsion notices were given within time because the calculation of time (days) for the purpose of r 8.2(f) should be understood to mean 'workings days' or 'business' days and so exclude Saturday and Sunday, it did not support its argument with any authorities or any consideration of the meaning of the word 'day' within the context of the rules of the Respondent. 20 Ultimately, I did not accept the Respondent's arguments on this point and I found that the word 'day' should carry its ordinary legal meaning which is a period of 24 hours calculated from midnight to midnight, and that it therefore did include Saturday and Sunday. My construction of the word 'day' was not a complex task and it should have been apparent to any lay person who considered the matter. 21 In my opinion the Respondent was aware, through the Applicants correspondence to the Association before any of the proceedings were commenced and then later through the Applicant's written submissions lodged prior to the final hearing, that each of the expulsion notices it gave to the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 were given outside of the time required by r 8.2(f) and that as a consequence was invalid. This in itself would have been determinative of each of the applications except for the applicant in CC 154 of 25. -- 11 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 12 22 Had the Respondent acted reasonably it would have accepted well before the final hearing that it had stumbled at the very first step in the process it used to expel the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025. Indeed, in my view the Respondent should have accepted that its process was flawed and it should have rescinded the expulsions of these Applicants well before any of them even commenced a proceeding in this Tribunal. 23 By not accepting its expulsion of the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 were invalid the Respondent was acting contrary to its Constitution. By requiring these Applicants to then assert their rights at a contested final hearing after this had been clearly pointed out to them by the Applicants the Respondent was also acting contrary to the main objectives of the Tribunal as set out in s 9 of the SAT Act. 24 I determined issue 5 for each of the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 on the basis of a fact which was conceded by the Respondent, which was that with the admission on 8 June 2024 of 50 new members the Respondent had reached the maximum number of members (500) permitted under r 7.1(b). The significance of this fact was, however, disputed by the parties. 25 Ultimately, I found that the decision of the Respondent to admit the new members on 8 June 2024, made only shortly after it had purported to expel each of the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025, was a decision which meant that the Respondent could not mediate with the Applicants in 'good faith' as it was required to do under r 22.3(a). This was because I found that as a result of the admission of the new members no outcome from the mediation could result in the Respondent agreeing to restore the Applicants as members of the Respondent: Cheema [84] - [95]. 26 In my opinion, the Respondent was aware through the written submissions lodged by the Applicants prior to the final hearing that it could not mediate in good faith with the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 as it was required to do under its own Constitution. Again, this finding alone would have been determinative of each of the applications. For this reason, by opposing the applications through to a final hearing and so requiring the Applicants to argue their position at a final hearing, the Respondent was acting contrary to the requirements of its own constitution as well as -- 12 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 13 acting contrary to the main objectives of the Tribunal as set out in s 9 of the SAT Act.1 27 The remainder of the issues to be determined by me were not resolved with the assistance of an agreed chronology or on facts conceded by the Respondent. Accordingly, I do not accept with respect to these remaining issues that the Respondent was acting contrary to the requirements of its own constitution as well as acting contrary to the main objectives of the Tribunal as set out in s 9 of the SAT Act. 28 However, in my opinion my reasons for determining issues 2 and 5 each separately justifies me making an award to the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025. I am particularly mindful that the Applicants did not rush into making applications with this Tribunal but engaged in lengthy correspondence with the Respondent over many months during which the strength of their positions was fully revealed. 29 However, none of these reasons for making a costs order applies to the Applicant in CC 154 of 2025. 30 I will therefore make an order for costs in favour of the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 but I will decline to make an order for costs in favour of the Applicant in CC 154 of 2025. What amount of costs should I award the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025? 31 The Applicants have sought orders for the costs of the applications fixed (collectively) in the amount $98,542.32. However, as I said above, I have declined to make an award for costs in favour of the Applicant in CC 154 of 2025. I therefore need to consider whether there should be an adjustment of the costs sought by the Applicants to reflect my decision that no costs are to be awarded to the Applicant in CC 154 of 2025. 32 The Applicant in CC 154 of 2025 was one of fourteen Applicants. However, the cases of the Applicants were not all of the same degree of legal or factual complexity. The Applicant in CC 154 of 2025 had the least complex case of any of the Applicants. The only novel feature of this application was in its facts, which were relatively few in number. 1 See CC 138 of 2025 (Cheema [130] - [131]), CC 139 of 2025 (Cheema [167] - [168]) and CC 154 of 2025 (Cheema [178]). -- 13 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 14 33 In my view the novel factual features of the application in CC 154 of 2025 contributed to only a very small part of the costs of the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025. I am satisfied that any order for costs made to these Applicants should be reduced by not allowing those items expressly identified in the Applicants' bill of costs relating to CC 154 of 25. These are: item 2 $471, item 4 $968, item 8 $984 and item 9 $518 for a total of $2,941. There are also some items such as preparing witness statements, mastering the brief and conferral and correspondence which I accept are not possible to disaggregate with any precision and yet which do include work in CC 154 of 25. In my view it would be proper to reduce the Applicant's bill of costs by $2,000 to reflect the small contribution of work done in those items for CC 154 of 25. This brings the total reduction for CC 154 of 25 to $4,941. After this deduction the claim for costs is reduced to $95,601.32 which I will round down to $95,000. 34 The Respondent also contends that any costs order made in favour of the Applicants should be reduced at least to the extent that they are claiming costs for arguing that I should determine the merits of the grounds given by the Respondent for their expulsion from the Respondent or that I should inquire into whether members of the EXCO were motivated to pursue the expulsion of the Applicants for improper reasons. The Respondent contends that the Applicants costs should be reduced by 40% to 'reflect partial success and unnecessary enlargement of proceedings'. 35 The Respondent says that allegations made by the Applicants particularly as to the motivations of certain members of the EXCO were of such a serious nature that the reputations of those EXCO members were at stake, which made it reasonable that it oppose the applications. 36 The Applicants contend that if I decide to reduce its order for costs in favour of the Applicants for this reason that it should reduce the costs sought by no more than 10% to 15%. 37 I accept the Respondent's contentions that due to the nature of the allegations made by the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 as to the merits of the grounds given by the Respondent for their expulsion and as to whether members of the EXCO were motivated to pursue the expulsion of the Applicants for improper reasons that it was reasonable for the Respondent to oppose those allegations. -- 14 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 15 38 I note I raised this issue with the Applicants at the commencement of the final hearing but despite this the Applicants proceeded to rely in their cases on these matters. By doing this the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 substantially and unreasonably prolonged the hearing. To that extent, I find the Applicants were also acting contrary to the main objectives of the Tribunal as set out in s 9 of the SAT Act. 39 I have reviewed the hearing books for each of the applications. For example, the hearing book in CC 137 of 2025 comprised about 1,600 pages. In general terms, the documents within this book can be described as: • Documents relevant to each Applicants expulsion: pages 1 - to 241; • Applicants SFIC pages 243 to 300; • Further documents pages 301 to 832; • Witness statement for each Applicant pages 833 to 1218; • Respondent's SFIC pages 1238 to 1251; • Documents pages 1252 to 1423; and • Witness statements pages 1423 to 1453. 40 The Applicants further documents in pages 301 to 832 includes minutes dating back to 2022, a copy of Bejawn v The Sikh Association of Western Australia Inc [2023] WASC 152, a transcript of a costs hearing in the Supreme Court, a Bill of Costs in that same Supreme Court proceedings, a petition to call a special general meeting as well as other documents relating to the circumstances of the expulsion of the Applicants. 41 The witness statements of each of the Applicants properly deals with both the process of the expulsion of the Applicants as well as matters relating the merits of the grounds given by the Respondent for their purported expulsion and material as to the alleged motivations behind certain members of the EXCO. 42 The witness statements and documents lodged by the Respondents deal with both the process of the purported expulsion of the Applicants as well as responding to the allegations made by the Applicants as to the -- 15 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 16 merits of the grounds given by the Respondent for their purported expulsion. These are matters which are both factually and legally complex. 43 In my opinion, a little above one third of the totality of the documents lodged by both parties deals in CC 137 of 2025 deals with the merits of the grounds given by the Respondent for their purported expulsion as well as the alleged motivations behind certain members of the EXCO. A considerable part of the cross examination by counsel for the Applicants of the Respondent's witnesses was also spent on these factually and legally complex matters. The situation on this point is similar with respect to the Applicants in CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025. As a matter of impression a little above one third of the time in the hearing was spent on such matters. 44 Taking a 'broad brush' approach to this matter, I am satisfied that a little more than a third of the Applicants costs in CC 137 of 2025, in CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 were due to the Applicants pursuing matters over which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and in doing so were acting contrary to the main objectives of the Tribunal as set out in s 9 of the SAT Act. 45 For this reason, I am satisfied the remaining costs claimed by the Applicants in CC 137 of 2025, in CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 should be reduced by a little over about one third. Without any pretence at mathematical precision and taking a 'broad brush' approach it is in my view just and proper to reduce the Applicants' claimed costs by 40%. This then reduces the Applicants claim for their costs to $57,000. 46 The allowed amount of costs must, though, be reasonable and not excessive in nature. After reviewing this amount I am satisfied that whilst it is large it relates to thirteen separate applications which were strongly contested by the Respondent through to the conclusion of a final hearing. I am also satisfied the applicant has also claimed only for those tasks necessary for the conduct of the hearing and has claimed only the minimum of time in which the tasks could have been completed. On the other hand, 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. Given this I am satisfied it is fair and reasonable to require the Respondent to contribute $55,000 (inclusive of GST) toward the Applicants costs. -- 16 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 17 47 However, this is not the end of the matter as I must next consider whether I am satisfied the Applicants' have in fact incurred the legal costs they claim. Past decisions of the Tribunal are replete with observations to this effect. For example, in Chiropractic Board of Australia and Ebtash [2020] WASAT 86 (S) the Tribunal (constituted by President Justice Pritchard, (as she then was), Senior Member Le Miere and Senior Sessional Member Carlin) said: 143 The relevance to the Tribunal in relation to what the Board has paid in legal fees is to provide evidence to us that what is being sought by way of a costs order by the Board is a recovery of fees that have been incurred by the Board. It is trite law that a party may not recover in a costs order more costs than it has actually incurred. 144 In respect of disbursements, we must know what disbursements have been incurred - a disbursement is unlikely to be allowed without an appropriate invoice being produced. 48 It has also been observed that it might be proper for me to require a party claiming its legal costs to provide the Tribunal with an affidavit attaching the tax invoices as charged or with a short form bill of costs: Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58 at [415]. 49 The Applicants did provide a short form bill of costs with reference to the appropriate scales, with tax invoices and with invoices for disbursements. On the basis of these documents, I am satisfied the Applicants have incurred the costs they have claimed. Ancillary orders 50 In addition to an order for their costs the Applicants seek an order under s 73 of the SAT Act that would prevent the Respondent from demanding that the Applicants pay to the Respondent any amount of costs that are awarded in their favour, and which would also prevent the Respondent from demanding that the Applicants pay the Respondent's legal costs in these applications. The Applicants provided me with no authorities in support of its contention I could make the ancillary orders sought. 51 In considering whether to make the ancillary orders sought I have looked to the words of s 73(1) of the SAT Act which gives to the Tribunal the power to make 'any ancillary order or direction the tribunal considers appropriate for achieving the purpose for which it may exercise the primary power.' -- 17 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 18 52 I have also taken into consideration that counsel for the Respondent at the costs hearing conceded that the Respondent has at a general meeting passed a resolution requiring members to pay to the Respondent costs that are awarded in their favour, and it has also passed a resolution requiring members to pay the Respondent's legal costs. 53 The Applicant's request for such ancillary orders is therefore based in the past actions of the Respondent. 54 However, even so, I am not persuaded I should make ancillary orders in this costs application. This is for the following reasons: 55 First, I doubt the power given to the Tribunal by s 73(1) of the SAT Act 'for achieving the purpose for which it may exercise the primary power' permits it to go beyond facilitating compliance with its order: Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Khosa [2020] WASAT 167 per Pritchard J at [28] - [32]. 56 Second, there is no degree of certainty or even likelihood that such a resolution would ever be proposed or that the Respondent would in fact pass such a resolution. 57 Third, it is not clear to me that the Respondent has the power to pass such a resolution, with the consequence that if it does the Applicants will then have a remedy independent of any ancillary order I make. 58 Fourth, as it is not clear to me that the Respondent has the power to pass such a resolution, I am not satisfied I should make an order preventing the Respondent from doing what it might be improper for it to do. Orders CC 137 of 2025, C 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 The Tribunal orders: 1. Pursuant to s 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the Respondent shall pay the Applicants' costs in applications CC 137 of 2025, CC 138 of 2025 and CC 139 of 2025 fixed at $55,000 (including GST). 2. The Applicants' application for costs is otherwise dismissed. 3. The Applicants' application for ancillary orders is dismissed. -- 18 of 19 -- [2025] WASAT 126 (S) Page 19 CC 154 of 2025 The Tribunal orders: 1. The Applicant's application for costs is dismissed. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MR E Cade, MEMBER 22 MAY 2026 -- 19 of 19 --