HAINSWORTH and CITY OF ARMADALE [2026] WASAT 60

[2026] WASAT 60 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA) CITATION : HAINSWORTH and CITY OF ARMADALE [2026] WASAT 60 MEMBER : JUDGE H JACKSON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT HEARD : 4 MAY 2026 DELIVERED : 21 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : DR 177 of 2025 DR 182 of 2025 BETWEEN : DONNA ROSETTA JOY HAINSWORTH Applicant AND CITY OF ARMADALE Respondent Catchwords: Local Government - Rates - Referrals under s 6.82 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) - Question whether referrals raise question that falls within that section - Section concerned with lawfulness of imposition of rates or service charges - Referral raises questions as to imposition of interest and application of payments - Question whether referrals raise a 'general question' as required by section - Referrals fall within Tribunal's review jurisdiction - Question whether extension of time should be granted -- 1 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 2 Legislation: Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 32(1) Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (WA), reg 55(b)(x), reg 56, reg 71(1), reg 71(3), Pt 5 Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 6.37, s 6.39, s 6.39(1), s 6.39(2), s 6.40, s 6.41, s 6.41(1), s 6.41(2), s 6.42, s 6.46, s 6.47, s 6.49, s 6.50(1), s 6.50(2), s 6.50(3), s 6.51, s 6.51(1), s 6.51(3), s 6.52, s 6.53, s 6.54, s 6.56, s 6.62, s 6.63, s 6.75, s 6.76, s 6.76(1), s 6.76(4), s 6.77, s 6.78, s 6.81, s 6.82, s 6.82(1), s 6.82(3), Pt 6, Div 6 State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 9, r 10 Result: Each of the two referrals fall outside the scope of s 6.82 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) An extension of time is required in DR 182 of 2025 and no extension should be granted Each proceeding should be dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : In Person Respondent : Mr A Watts Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Respondent : McLeods Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Brown and City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder [2023] WASAT 44 Citygate Properties Pty Ltd and City of Bunbury [2009] WASAT 142 Dean and City of Kalamunda [2021] WASAT 30 Smith and City of Stirling [2006] WASAT 6 Stevens v Keogh [1946] HCA 16; (1946) 72 CLR 1 -- 2 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 3 Van Oijen and Shire of Cuballing [2019] WASAT 62 -- 3 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 4 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 Ms Hainsworth has been in dispute with the City of Armadale for several years about rates and associated charges that, the City says, she owes for two properties - one in Bedfordale and one in Camillo. 2 In November 2025 she filed applications under s 6.78 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LGA)1 seeking a review of rates and associated charges imposed in relation to each of those properties - on 17 November 2025 (DR 177/2025 - Camillo) and on 24 November 2025 (DR 182/2025 - Bedfordale). 3 Ms Hainsworth subsequently accepted, correctly, that her applications fell outside the scope of that section and she filed materials by which she sought, in effect, to have each application considered as a referral of a general question under s 6.82. 4 The City submits that the grounds relied upon by Ms Hainsworth do not bring either of those matters within the scope of s 6.82. It also submits that the referrals are made out of time and that an extension of time is required. Pursuant to orders made on 30 January 2026, I have considered those two questions on a preliminary basis. 5 I have also considered a third question in relation to DR 182/2025. The Bedfordale property was sold in 2018 so a question arises whether, in a referral made under s 6.82, s 6.39(2) prevents the Tribunal from amending a rate record made earlier than five years preceding the current financial year. 6 For the following reasons, I find that neither of Ms Hainsworth's referrals fall within the scope of s 6.82. I would also refuse to grant an extension of time in relation to DR 182 of 2025. It is not necessary for me to finally determine the effect of s 6.39(2) on the Tribunal's powers under s 6.82. Legislative Framework 7 Division 6 of Pt 6 of the LGA deals with rates and service charges. 8 Section 6.39(1) provides that: 1 Unless otherwise stated, all sections referred to are sections of the LGA. -- 4 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 5 As soon as practicable after a local government has resolved to impose rates in a financial year it is to ensure that a record is compiled, at the time and in the form and manner prescribed, for that financial year of - (a) all rateable land in its district; and (b) all land in its district on which a service charge is imposed. 9 That 'record [to be] compiled' is a 'rate record'. That is evident from the terms of s 6.39(2), which provides that: A local government - (a) is required, from time to time, to amend a rate record for the current financial year to ensure that the information contained in the record is current and correct and that the record is in accordance with this Act; and (b) may amend the rate record for the 5 years preceding the current financial year. 10 Part 5 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (WA) (LGFM Regs) prescribes the form and content of the rate record. Amongst other things, reg 55(b)(x) provides that the rate record must include: (x) full details of - (I) the amount of the rates or service charges imposed on the land; and (II) any discount, waiver, concession, interest or additional charge applicable to the rates or service charges; and (III) amounts received in respect of the rates or service charges on the land; and (IV) any amount written off in respect of the rates or service charges on the land; and (V) the balance of the rates or service charges owing on the land. 11 Section 6.40 provides for the amendment of the 'rate record' pursuant to s 6.39(2). It provides that: (1) Where the rate record in relation to any land is amended under section 6.39(2) as a result of a change in - (a) the rateable value of; or -- 5 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 6 (b) the rateability of; or (c) the rate imposed on, that land, the local government is to reassess the rates payable on the land and to give notice to the owner of the land of any change in the amount of rates payable on the land. 12 A local government is required to give to an owner of land a rate notice stating the date the notice was issued and must include the prescribed details: s 6.41(1). Regulation 56 of the LGFM Regs prescribes the relevant details. The rate notice is required to be given 'as soon as practicable' after the rate record has been completed or amended: s 6.41(2). 13 Rates and charges become due and payable on such date as determined by the local government - s 6.50(1) - although the date determined by a local government under s 6.50(1) is not to be earlier than 35 days after the date noted on the rate record as the date the rate notice was issued: s 6.50(2). 14 When imposing a rate, a local government may, subject to a prescribed maximum, resolve to impose interest at the rate set in its annual budget on a rate or service charge and on any costs of proceedings to recover any such charge that remains unpaid after becoming due and payable: s 6.51(1). 15 Accrued interest is, for the purpose of its recovery, taken to be a rate or service charge, as the case requires, that is due and payable: s 6.51(3). 16 Where money is paid to a local government in respect of rates or charges, s 6.62 mandates that the local government is required to apply the money towards: (a) the rates or services charges due on the land in the order in which they become due; and (b) any outstanding costs of proceedings for the recovery of any such rates or charges. 17 Section 6.76(1) provides a right for a person to object, to the relevant local government, in relation to a rate record of that local government on the ground that there is an error in the rate record with respect to the identity of the owner, that the land or part thereof is not rateable land, or regarding differential general rates. A person -- 6 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 7 dissatisfied with the decision of a local government on an objection may, within 42 days, apply to the Tribunal for a review of that decision: s 6.77. 18 Section 6.81 provides that the lodgement of an objection does not affect the liability to pay rates imposed under the LGA pending the determination of the objection. 19 Section 6.82(1) provides that where there is a question of general interest as to whether a rate or service charge has been imposed in accordance with the LGA, the local government or any person may 'refer' the matter to the Tribunal. If the Tribunal considers that the rate or service charge has not been properly made or imposed, it may make an order quashing that rate or charge: s 6.82(3). Relevant Legal Principles 20 Several decisions of the Tribunal have been made regarding the proper scope and application of s 6.82. It is convenient to note some of the principles that have arisen by reference to those decisions. 21 In Smith2 the Tribunal relied upon the High Court's decision in Stevens v Keogh3 to find that: it does not follow … that the personal focus of an objector - even one stated so narrowly and as apparently self-focussed as Mr Smith has done - necessarily leads to the conclusion that no question of general interest is raised by the objection. 22 The Tribunal went on to determine various questions, including whether the statutory criteria within s 6.37 had been met by the City in imposing a specified area rate; in particular whether a 'benefit' had accrued to residents. 23 In Citygate4 Chaney J held that: (a) the reference of a question under s 6.82 falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction;5 2 Smith and City of Stirling [2006] WASAT 6, [23]. 3 Stevens v Keogh [1946] HCA 16; (1946) 72 CLR 1. 4 Citygate Properties Pty Ltd and City of Bunbury [2009] WASAT 142. 5 Citygate, [29]. -- 7 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 8 (b) accordingly, r 9 of the State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA) (Rules) has application, so a referral must be made within 28 days of the decision from which the question referred arises;6 (c) the imposition of rates in a particular year amounts to a separate decision, such that each year's rates which are the subject of a referral to the Tribunal should be the subject of a separate referral;7 (d) in dealing with an application for an extension of time under r 10 of the Rules, s 6.39 will be relevant. As noted above, that section allows a local government to amend its rate record, but not for a year that is more than five years prior to the current financial year. His Honour held:8 There would seem little point in quashing rates imposed more than five years earlier, and counsel for the applicants virtually conceded that a question in relation to rates imposed more than five years earlier could not amount to a 'question of general interest'. (e) an applicant raising issues of compliance with statutory provisions should not be held to the objections originally made by them to the local government.9 24 In Van Oijen,10 Member Willey (as he then was) held that a question whether a rates notice had been properly served in accordance with s 6.41 may raise a 'question of general interest' under s 6.82.11 In doing so, he found that that question (whether the rates notice had been properly served) 'goes to' the question whether rates have been 'imposed' in accordance with the LGA.12 However, he refused to extend time under r 10 in circumstances where the referral under s 6.82 occurred nearly three years after the decision in question.13 25 In Dean14 DP Parry dismissed as misconceived a referral made under s 6.82. His Honour held that:15 6 Citygate, [36]. 7 Citygate, [48]. 8 Citygate, [43]. 9 Citygate, [52]. 10 Van Oijen and Shire of Cuballing [2019] WASAT 62. 11 Van Oijen, [56]. 12 Van Oijen, [59]. 13 Van Oijen, [62]. 14 Dean and City of Kalamunda [2021] WASAT 30. 15 Dean, [18]. -- 8 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 9 Section 6.82(1) of the LG Act only authorises the Tribunal to resolve a question of general interest 'as to whether a rate or service charge was imposed in accordance with this Act', not any question as to the correct method of valuation to be used by a local government as the basis for a rate, including whether the correct method of valuation to be used for the imposition of a rate is gross rental value. 26 In Brown,16 the applicant had paid to the local government a sum of several thousands of dollars which, he claimed, the local government had agreed would clear his debt, notwithstanding that the amount paid was less than the amount owing. 27 I held that that issue did not fall within the scope of s 6.82 because it proceeded on the basis that the rates had been correctly imposed. That is, the disagreement between the parties was whether the amount was paid in 'full and final satisfaction' of the outstanding debt and,17 as such, it did not concern whether a 'rate or service charge was imposed in accordance with' the LGA. What Ms Hainsworth Does Not Contest 28 In what follows, I have first set out the grounds relied upon, and the orders sought, by Ms Hainsworth in relation to each of the two referrals, following which I have addressed each of the preliminary questions. 29 I have addressed the referrals separately because, while there is some considerable overlap in the subject matter, the grounds relied upon and the orders sought differ somewhat, such that they are best addressed separately. 30 In both referrals, Ms Hainsworth has been very clear, and helpfully so, in describing what she does not contest. 31 In submissions filed on 11 January 2026, which address both referrals, she says that she 'does not seek'18 the 'review of a valuation', 'to reopen or appeal any court judgment' or 'to dispute the existence of a power to impose rates or levies'.19 She repeated this in her Response to Respondent's Submissions, filed 26 March 2026.20 16 Brown and City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder [2023] WASAT 44. 17 Brown, [58] - [60]. 18 Emphasis in original. 19 Applicant's Submissions, filed 11 January 2026, page 1 of 7. 20 At para 4, page 2 of 7. -- 9 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 10 32 At the hearing, at which she appeared for herself, after repeating it, Ms Hainsworth clarified what she intended by that statement. 33 She did so by reference to a particular rates record, which she used as an example. She said that she did not contest the Residential Improved Rate imposed, the Domestic Rubbish Charge or the Emergency Services Levy. 34 I understood her to mean that she accepted those rates/charges in all relevant years and on each of the two properties. As such, the only sums contested by her in her two referrals are those sums imposed by reference to other headings such as 'Legal Charges', 'Debt Recovery Administration Fee', and 'Payments, Interest & Adjustments'. 35 As will be seen, such concession is consistent with the grounds she relies upon in each of the two referrals. DR 182/2025 - Wallangarra Drive, Bedfordale Overview of Ms Hainsworth's Claims 36 Although by documents filed on 11 January 2026, Ms Hainsworth has amended the grounds she relies upon, the grounds relied upon in her original referral provide useful context to the amended grounds. 37 Her original grounds in this referral were as follows: (a) Original Ground One alleged that the rate record for the property 'contains incorrect entries dating back to at least 2008'. It would appear that the 'errors' which she has 'identified' include that, over several years, 'the annual payment exceeded the annual levy' and 'yet' the City recorded 'arrears instead of credits', 'incorrectly carried forward balances' and 'figures inconsistent with the levy-payment reconciliation'. She also alleged that the errors were 'rolled forward annually'. (b) Original Ground Two alleged that interest has been charged for the years 2008-2011 despite interest being 'first imposed in 2012'. (c) Original Ground Three complained that the City has 'never provided an itemised, year-by-year breakdown' of interest, principal, legal costs and penalties and that between 2008-2018 it failed to disclose 'the basis for arrears, interest, penalties or accumulated charges'. -- 10 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 11 (d) Original Ground Four complained that at the settlement of the Bedfordale property in April 2018, a lump sum of $27,406.10 was allocated to the debt owing on that property but the City never provided a breakdown of that figure. (e) Original Ground Five complained that the City's records are inadequate in various ways. (f) Original Ground Six is headed 'Failure to Disclose Ledger Information until 2025'. It included the statement that the 'delay in objecting is entirely due to the City's failure to disclose the rate record, satisfying s 6.76(4)'. (g) Original Ground Seven complained that while a payment of $44,349.85 was deducted at settlement in relation to a Memorial, the City 'has never provided an itemised breakdown or allocation of this payment'. 38 By a document filed 11 January 2026, Ms Hainsworth reframed her grounds as follows: (a) Ground One - Ms Hainsworth alleges that the City has 'failed to comply with its statutory obligation under s 6.39(2) to ensure that the rate record is current and correct' during her ownership of the land, including by 'misapplying payments', 'recording arrears where payments had been made', 'carrying forward incorrect balances' and 'maintaining a rate record that did not accurately reflect amounts lawfully due and payable'; (b) Ground Two - Ms Hainsworth alleges that '[o]nce errors arose in the Bedfordale rate record, including in connection with the determination and application of a surplus on settlement, the [City] failed to reassess the rate record and issue corrected notices as required by s 6.40 … resulting in the continuation of incorrect balances'; (c) Ground Three - Ms Hainsworth alleges that '[p]ayments made in respect of the land were not applied in the mandatory statutory order prescribed by section 6.62 …'; (d) Ground Four - Ms Hainsworth alleges that '[i]nterest was calculated and carried forward otherwise than in accordance with section 6.51'; and -- 11 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 12 (e) Ground Five - Ms Hainsworth alleges that her complaints raise a question of general interest 'as to whether the [City's] method of maintaining rate records, calculating interest and costs, and determining surplus amounts on settlement complies' with the LGA. 39 Ms Hainsworth seeks various orders, the first two of which are described as 'primary'. By those proposed orders, Ms Hainsworth seeks: 1. a declaration that the rate record of the Bedfordale property, for the period 'up to and including the date of sale and settlement in April 2018 is not current and correct'; and 2. an order that the City 'reassess the rate record'. 40 She also seeks orders: 3. that the City produce a 'forensic, auditable rate ledger' for the Bedfordale property up to and including April 2018, 'showing each and every entry recorded on the rate record …'; and 4. quashing any interest or charge imposed otherwise than in accordance with the LGA. The Referral Does Not Fall within s 6.82 41 I am satisfied, and I find, that the referral does not fall within s 6.82. That is for two reasons. (a) it does not raise a question as to 'whether a rate or service charge was imposed in accordance' with the LGA; and (b) the complaints are specific to Ms Hainsworth and the referral does not raise a 'question of general interest'. No Question is Raised as to the Imposition of a Rate or Service Charge 42 The scope of s 6.82 is limited to the imposition of rates and service charges. That is the clear language employed in the section. 43 In using that language, Parliament has avoided or excluded from the scope of the section the imposition of other sums, such as interest, that are concerned with the payment of (rather than the imposition of) rates and charges. It has avoided or excluded from the scope of the section questions as to, or associated with, payment. -- 12 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 13 44 Such an approach is consistent with the division of Part 6 Division 6 into subdivisions.21 45 Subdivision 3 of Division 6 is headed 'Imposition of rates and service charges' and includes sections 6.39, 6.40 and 6.41. Subdivision 4 is headed 'Payment of rates and service charges' and includes sections 6.42 to 6.53. Subdivision 5 is headed 'Recovery of unpaid rates and service charges' and includes sections 6.54 to s 6.62. 46 It is within Subdivision 4 that the sections occur which allow for the provision of, for example, discounts (s 6.46) and concessions (s 6.47), the acceptance of payments 'in accordance with an agreement' (s 6.49), the accrual of interest (s 6.51), and apportionment between successive owners (s 6.52). And it is within Subdivision 5 that the requirement arises that monies paid must be applied to 'the rates or services charges due … in the order in which they become due' under s 6.62. 47 As I have noted, Ms Hainsworth takes no objection to the rates imposed. Rather, by Grounds Three and Four she complains that money paid by her has not been applied correctly in accordance with s 6.62 and that interest has been charged incorrectly. 48 As to the application of funds, her complaint is somewhat analogous with the question in Brown. In that case, the applicant alleged that a lump sum payment had been made in accordance with an agreement that it was in full and final settlement of the amount due. 49 Such an agreement, had it been made, may have been anticipated by s 6.49,22 which is to be found in Subdivision 4, but, in any event, I found that the question whether the agreement had been reached, and its terms and application, did not fall within the scope of s 6.82. 50 Equally, I find, the question whether funds paid have been applied in accordance with s 6.62 does not fall within the scope of s 6.82. That is, the question whether or not payments made have been applied in the mandatory, statutory, order consistent with s 6.62 is not a matter concerning the imposition of a rate. Rather, it is a question concerning what the local government does with funds once they are paid. To use 21 By s 32(1) of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), the headings of Parts, divisions and subdivisions of the LGA form part of it. 22 Halsbury indicates that provisions similar to s 6.49 allow for agreement to be reached for rates to be paid in instalments. However, s 6.45 already makes such provision. -- 13 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 14 the language of the heading to Subdivision 5, it is a question concerning the 'recovery' of unpaid rates and service charges. 51 I also find that the correctness of any interest charged does not fall within the scope of s 6.82. 52 There are two reasons for that. The first is structural or, perhaps, contextual. That is, s 6.51, which provides for interest to be imposed on overdue rates or service charges, is located within Subdivision 4, not Subdivision 3, with the latter being concerned with the imposition of rates and service charges. As I have noted above, the language of s 6.82 mirrors that of the heading to Subdivision 3. 53 Second is s 6.51(3), which provides that '[a]ccrued interest is, for the purpose of its recovery, taken to be a rate or service charge, as the case may be, that is due and payable'. The fact that that sub-section expressly provides that interest is 'taken to be a rate or service charge' for a certain, stated purpose, strongly supports the conclusion that interest cannot and should not be taken to be a rate or service charge for any other purpose. 54 As best as I can ascertain, Ms Hainsworth's complaint (Ground One) that the relevant rate record is incorrect does not allege anything more than that there are errors in the imposition of interest and the application of payments and that those errors are reflected in the rate record. Her complaint that the City has failed to correct the rate record (Ground Two) may be described in the same way, as can Ground Five. 55 That is, each of Grounds One, Two and Five can properly be described as reformulating the complaints in Grounds Three (unlawful application of payments) and Four (unlawful imposition of interest). 56 The orders sought by Ms Hainsworth do not assist her in this regard. They proceed on the basis that the rate record is inaccurate and that interest and charges have been unlawfully imposed. No details are exposed or explained in addition to those of the Grounds. 57 In short, I am satisfied that the matters of which Ms Hainsworth complains, as set out in the Grounds and orders sought, do not raise a question as to whether a rate or service charge was imposed in accordance with the LGA so as to bring them within the scope of s 6.82. -- 14 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 15 Not a Question of General Interest 58 The City submits that the complaints raised by Ms Hainsworth are limited to her own circumstances and therefore do not raise a question of general interest, so as to bring them within the scope of s 6.82.23 59 Ms Hainsworth, in answer, submits that if the City is in error in dealing with her property in the way she alleges, it may well be in similar error in relation to other properties.24 60 That might be so. It might also be said that the alleged errors of which she complains appear to have arisen due to a long running history of her non- or late- payment such that ratepayers who pay their rates and charges on time, which I presume is the vast majority, would not be exposed to them. 61 I am also conscious of the observation in Van Oijen that the Tribunal in Smith 'suggest[ed] that it is appropriate that the Tribunal approach applications under s 6.82 in a manner which accords with Parliament's intent in establishing a right of review to the Tribunal'.25 62 The Tribunal's approach in Smith and Van Oijen suggests that where a question arises as to whether a rate or service charge has been lawfully imposed, it will ordinarily be found to raise a question of general interest or, to put it in the negative, that in such circumstances the Tribunal should be particularly cautious before finding that it does not. 63 Had I found that Ms Hainsworth had raised such a question, I am likely to have found that the question raised was one of general interest. 64 As I found otherwise, I need not determine whether it is a question of general interest. 65 Nonetheless, in my view the referral is not a question of general interest because of the very long time that has elapsed since the alleged errors relied upon by Ms Hainsworth in her revised Grounds, remembering that the sale of the property settled in April 2018. 66 In that regard I respectfully apply Chaney J's tentative conclusion that there can be no issue of general interest in the correction of a rate 23 Respondent's Submissions on Jurisdiction and Whether Leave to Extend Time Should be Granted, filed 27 February 2026, paras 20 and 21. 24 Applicant's Response to Respondent's Submissions, filed 26 March 2026, paras 40 - 42. 25 Van Oijen, [54]. -- 15 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 16 record which is older than five years. As noted above, his Honour referred to s 6.39(2) as relevant to that (tentative) conclusion. 67 That section limits the City's power to correct the rate record to 'the five years preceding the current financial years'. 68 I agree with his Honour that s 6.39(2) strongly suggests that there can be no question of general interest in correcting a record from earlier than that. In circumstances where the Bedfordale property was sold in 2018, I am satisfied that there can be no question of general interest arising from the questions raised by Ms Hainsworth in relation to that property. 69 In so finding, I emphasise that I have deliberately avoided answering the question whether the limitation imposed by s 6.39(2) also imposes the same limitation on the Tribunal when exercising its powers under s 6.82. Given the paucity of submissions made by the parties, and that Ms Hainsworth is not legally represented, it would not be appropriate to come to a firm view. An Extension of Time Should Not be Granted 70 The lengthy passage of time is also the main reason why I would not, in any event, grant an extension of time under r 10 of the Rules for Ms Hainsworth to make a referral under s 6.82. 71 More than seven years have passed between the settlement of the sale of the Bedfordale property and Ms Hainsworth's referral to the Tribunal. By any standard that is a long time. The delay in Van Oijen was two years and six months. That period was described as 'inordinate' and it was said that it 'tends to render the 28 review period somewhat inutile'.26 72 Ms Hainsworth's explanation for the delay was, in effect, that she had only become aware of the various matters of which she complains after she paid a sum in accordance with the ruling of the Magistrates Court and, soon thereafter, received a further rates notice.27 73 I do not accept that explanation. It is clear that Ms Hainsworth and the City have been involved in a dispute about rates in relation to the Bedfordale property for many years. In her Original Grounds, there are references to alleged errors in the rate record dating back as far 26 Van Oijen, [72]. 27 See, also, Original Ground Six. -- 16 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 17 as 2008. Perhaps most damning for Ms Hainsworth in this regard is that she appears to have obtained a spreadsheet outlining various entries as far back as 2019. In the context, I infer that that occurred in relation to a dispute about rates. 74 There may also be some force in the submission made by Mr Watts, who appeared at the hearing for the City, that to amend the record many years after 2018 may present practical difficulties (by reference to accounting software) as well as create difficulties, in that the money has, inevitably, been spent. 75 However, in the present those difficulties appear likely to be capable of being overcome (in the former case) or, in the latter case, to be of limited impact, given the relatively small proportion the figures would represent to the City's overall budget. 76 Nonetheless, I am of the view that no extension of time should be granted. The delay is too long and the explanation inadequate. DR 177/2025 - Cammillo Road, Camillo Overview of the Grounds 77 Ms Hainsworth's original grounds were as follows: (a) Original Ground One was that the City had 'imposed interest in a manner not authorised by s 6.51 … and regulations 70-71' of the LGFM Regs. The complaint is that for the years 2013 to 2025, the annual rate notices state that 'arrears interest is charged "including previous interest charges brought forward", which constitutes the imposition of compound interest', contrary to s 6.51(1), and regs 71(1) and (3) of the LGFM Regs. (b) Original Ground Two complained that interest had been charged on 'legal fees, administrative charges, internal recovery fees and other non-rate components', whereas s 6.56 'permits only … court-assessed costs'. (c) Original Ground Three complained that interest was charged during the COVID era, despite a Ministerial Order that, she alleges, prevented that occurring for 'persons in financial hardship', of which she says she was one. (d) Original Ground Four complained about the alleged 'misallocation' of payments. -- 17 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 18 (i) In particular, she complained that at settlement of the Bedfordale property, the City received $41,082.46 of which $27,406.10 was applied to reduce the debt owing on that property and $13,676.36 was applied to the debt owing on the Camillo property. She says that no explanation was provided for that application. (ii) She also complained of the application of other payments, including one obtained by garnisheeing a mortgage and a judgment payment made 'under protest'. (iii) She says that the lack of explanation 'creates a risk of duplication, double-counting or over-allocation. (e) Original Ground Five complained that there has been an 'incorrect' recording of payments. She points to the 2025-2026 rate notice which records a payment of $8,490.92 while the ledger records a payment 'on the same date' of $10,292.89. (f) Original Ground Six appears to be a complaint that relies upon other complaints. The complaint is that the 'annual arrears are incorrect because they rely upon: compound interest, misallocated payments, interest on unlawful fees' etc. (g) Original Ground Seven complained that the City wrongfully refused pensioner rebates. (h) Original Ground Eight alleged procedural unfairness arising from the 'joinder' of a co-owner of the property. This appears to be a reference to other proceedings. (i) Original Ground Nine complained that the City failed to provide 'ledger and interest calculations' until September 2025 such that she could not reconcile arrears, verify interest, identify unlawful charges etc. (j) Original Ground Ten also appears to be a complaint that relies upon other complaints. It alleged that enforcement actions 'relied on inflated and unlawful arrears', 'legal fees were added without a court assessment or order', etc. 78 By a document filed 11 January 2026, Ms Hainsworth has reframed her grounds as follows: -- 18 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 19 (a) Ground One alleges the City's failure to maintain a current and correct rate record, in that the City has, she says, misapplied payments, recorded arrears where payments have been made, carried forward incorrect balances and issued rate notices derived from an inaccurate rate record. (b) Ground Two alleges that, once errors arose in the rate record, the City failed to properly reassess the rates and charges and failed to issue corrected rate notice. (c) Ground Three alleges the unlawful application of payments. (d) Ground Four alleges that interest has been charged without a legal foundation. (e) Ground Five alleges that there is a question of general interest as to whether the City's 'method of maintaining rate records, applying payments and charging interest complies with the [LGA]'. The Referral Does Not Fall within s 6.82 79 Grounds Three and Four are concerned with the incurring of interest and the allocation of payments, and the consequential recording of errors on the rate record. 80 For the same reasons I gave in relation to similar grounds in DR 182/2025, I find that those grounds do not amount to a question as to 'whether a rate or service charge was imposed in accordance with' the LGA. 81 Grounds One, Two and Five depend on Grounds Three and Four for their substance. They allege that the rate record is wrong, that the City has failed to correct it, and that these are all matters of general interest. To the extent that there is any explanation for the alleged errors in the rate record, it concerns interest, the misapplication of payments and accounting errors. Accordingly, I find that the same conclusion reached for Grounds Three and Four must follow for Grounds One, Two and Five as well. Not a Question of General Interest 82 It is not clear, on the reframed Grounds, whether the complaints concern alleged errors made more than five years ago. -- 19 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 20 83 However, Original Ground One complained about rate notices for 2013-2025 and Original Ground Four complained about the application of funds arising from the settlement of the Bedfordale property in 2018. 84 To the extent that those matters form part of the substrate of the amended Grounds, I find that they do not raise matters of general interest, for reasons given previously. An Extension of Time Should not be Granted 85 Given the immediately preceding paragraphs, it should be apparent that I am unclear as to when at least some of the decisions were made that are now the subject of Ms Hainsworth's referral. 86 The balance of the document containing amended Grounds does not assist. Under the heading 'Date of Decision', Ms Hainsworth said that it was 'not applicable'. She goes on to explain that the: … application concerns a continuing statutory failure. The most recent manifestation is the issue of the current rate notice showing an outstanding balance inconsistent with payments made. 87 Given Chaney J's finding in Citygate,28 with which I respectfully agree, that the decision each year to impose rates constitutes a separate decision for which a separate referral should be made, I do not accept that a ratepayer can simply 'roll up' a series of alleged 'ongoing' errors as evidenced in the most recent rates notice. To do so would allow a circumvention of the requirement that a referral must be made within 28 days of the decision from which the question the subject of referral arose. 88 However, I have no real feel for the duration of the delay, save that (as noted above) some of the Original Grounds suggest that, for some elements of the referral, there may have been a delay of several years. 89 In those circumstances it is not appropriate to form a firm view on whether an extension of time should be granted. Such a decision would apply to the whole of the referral when some Grounds concern decisions made much earlier than others. 90 Given my decision that the referral does not fall within the scope of 6.82, it is not necessary for me to determine whether or not to extend time and I will therefore decline to do so. 28 Citygate, [48]. -- 20 of 21 -- [2026] WASAT 60 Page 21 Conclusion 91 For the above reasons, I find that in both DR 177/2025 and DR 182/2025 the referral by Ms Hainsworth does not give rise to a question whether a rate or service charge was imposed in accordance with the LGA. 92 Accordingly, neither of them fall within the scope of s 6.82. 93 The result is that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the referrals and each of them should, therefore, be dismissed. 94 In any event, I also find, in relation to DR 182/2025, that the complaints raised by Ms Hainsworth do not raise a question of general interest. To the extent that the complaints raised in DR 177/2025 concern decisions made more than five years ago, they also do not raise a question of general interest. 95 I also find that Ms Hainsworth requires an extension of time to make the referral in DR 177/2025 and I would refuse to grant an extension of time in each case. I make no finding in that regard in relation to DR 182/2025. 96 Finally, it is not necessary for me to determine the effect of s 6.39(2) on the Tribunal's power to amend a rate record more than five years ago and I also make no finding in that regard. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. DM Associate 21 MAY 2026 -- 21 of 21 --