KAUR and THE OWNERS OF CODE STRATA PLAN 58103 [2026] WASAT 40

[2026] WASAT 40 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA) CITATION : KAUR and THE OWNERS OF CODE STRATA PLAN 58103 [2026] WASAT 40 MEMBER : MS N OLDFIELD, MEMBER MR G SMITH, SESSIONAL MEMBER HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 15 APRIL 2026 PUBLISHED : 24 APRIL 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 288 of 2025 BETWEEN : HARJIT KAUR Applicant AND THE OWNERS OF CODE STRATA PLAN 58103 Respondent Catchwords: Strata titles - Application for costs - Onus on party seeking costs - Lack of evidence Legislation: Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87(1), s 87(2) -- 1 of 5 -- [2026] WASAT 40 Page 2 Result: Application for costs dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : N/A Respondent : N/A Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Respondent : Taylor Smart Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Chiropractic Board of Australia and Ebtash [2020] WASAT 86 (S) Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58 -- 2 of 5 -- [2026] WASAT 40 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: (The following comprise the reasons that were delivered orally, subject only to minor editing to improve clarity of expression and setting out.) Introduction 1 These are the reasons for the decision of myself and Sessional Member Mr Glenn Smith in relation to the costs application of the respondent strata company.1 2 In our reasons we refer to the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). For brevity it will be called the SAT Act. Material considered 3 There was no hearing of the costs application. In reaching our decision, we have considered: (a) the submissions of the Strata Company lodged on 5 March 2026; (b) the submissions of Dr Kaur lodged on 2 April 2026; and (c) the Tribunal's records of the proceedings. Legal principles 4 The applicable legal principles are well established. Section 87(1) of the SAT Act states that each party is to bear their own costs, unless otherwise specified, for example by an order pursuant to s 87(2) of the SAT Act. Section 87(2) states the Tribunal may order that one party pay all or a portion of another party's costs. 5 The relevant guiding principles might be summarised as follows: (a) The onus is on the party seeking costs to satisfy the Tribunal it is fair and reasonable to make an award of costs in all the circumstances of the proceedings. (b) The rationale for a costs order is not punitive but to compensate or reimburse the party for costs incurred in relation to the proceeding. 1 The substantive decision in this proceeding was delivered orally on 19 February 2026 and has not been published as at the publication date of these reasons. -- 3 of 5 -- [2026] WASAT 40 Page 4 (c) The presumptions regarding costs orders which apply in court proceedings do not apply in Tribunal proceedings. (d) Where there is a genuine dispute, the parties should expect to bear their own costs unless there are circumstances which otherwise justify a costs order. (e) Each party is presumed to be aware of the statutory objectives of the Tribunal. If it can be established a party's conduct has impaired the attainment of those objectives, that may give rise to a costs order. (f) A party's failure to succeed does not of itself mean a party has acted contrary to the Tribunal's statutory objectives. Considering the submissions of the strata company 6 The strata company was successful in entirely defending the application of Dr Kaur. The schedule of costs submitted in support of its claim was clear and well expressed. 7 However, because costs are in the nature of compensation or reimbursement, it is necessary there be satisfactory evidence that the costs were in fact incurred. There is no shortage of previous decisions on this point, including that of the Tribunal in the Chiropractic Board of Australia and Ebtash2 and of the WA Court of Appeal in Panegyres and Medical Board of Australia.3 8 Unfortunately for the strata company, it did not lodge any evidence supporting the schedule of costs. In this instance the strata company lodged only submissions, and submissions do not constitute evidence. 9 We do not consider we can treat as an agreed fact that these costs were incurred. Firstly, Dr Kaur did not explicitly agree. Secondly, we cannot take her failure to oppose the application on that specific basis as an implied admission because Dr Kaur is not legally represented and respectfully, we consider the submissions filed by Dr Kaur demonstrate she does not possess a sound understanding of the applicable legal principles. 2 Chiropractic Board of Australia and Ebtash [2020] WASAT 86 (S) at [143] - [144]. 3 Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58 at [415]. -- 4 of 5 -- [2026] WASAT 40 Page 5 10 Accordingly, the Tribunal has no evidence that the costs claimed were incurred by the strata company. Therefore, there is not a sufficient basis upon which to award costs. 11 For this reason, we must decline to make orders as sought by the strata company. Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. Pursuant to s 49 of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) and s 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent's application for costs is dismissed. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MS N Oldfield, MEMBER 24 APRIL 2026 -- 5 of 5 --