1. For the reasons which follow, the Tribunal concludes that the answer to each of the above questions is 'No'. This means Mr Banning's application is unsuccessful.

Where, pursuant to an application for an order under this section, the State Administrative Tribunal considers that the strata company for the scheme to which the application relates, or the administrator for that scheme, or the chairman, secretary or treasurer of that strata company has wrongfully -

(a) withheld from the applicant information to which he is entitled under this Act; or

(b) failed to make available for inspection by the applicant or his agent a record or document that under this Act he is entitled to inspect,

the State Administrative Tribunal may order that strata company, administrator, chairman, secretary or treasurer to supply or make available the information or to make so available the record or document, as the case may require, to the applicant.

1. The discretion at to what documents should be released under s 90 was dealt with by Justice Kenneth Martin in Maguire v Owners of Rosyln Strata Plan 35960 [2014] WASC 28 (Maguire) at [21], [27], [28] and [62].
2. His Honour stated at [21] that within s 90, the word 'wrongfully' conditions both (a) and (b), as regards the strata company having 'withheld' information from inspection and having 'failed' to make a record or document available for inspection. Importantly, at [62] His Honour concluded:

The senior member was called upon to exercise the s 90 discretion in a context of rights afforded under s 43(1)(b) of the Strata Titles Act to inspect documents, then under s 43(1a) to request copies, all of which should be exercised within reasonable bounds and monitored by SAT to guard against the serious potential of misuse, oppression and pettiness. If a requesting person is perceived by SAT to be acting unreasonably, oppressively or obsessively by invoking such a provision, then it more than falls within the purview of SAT, by the discretion under s 90, to inhibit untoward conduct.

1. The discretion in s 90 was summarised by the Tribunal in Gawor and The Owners of Dawesville Caravan Park Strata Plan 14644 [2015] WASAT 60 (Gawor), by reference to Maguire, at [12] as follows:

... The power conferred on the Tribunal, by s 90 of the ST Act is a discretionary power: see Maguire v Owners of Roslyn Strata Plan 35960 [2014] WASC 28 (Maguire) and it may only be exercised if the Tribunal concludes that the strata company to whom the request was made 'wrongfully' failed to make the requested document available (the threshold issue). As to the exercise of the discretions in s 90 of the ST Act (or s 83(1) of the ST Act), the Tribunal must guard against misuse, oppression and obsessiveness in such application (Maguire at [62]).

1. In dealing with the supply of information by a strata company, the Tribunal explained the operation of s 43(1a), 43(5) and 43(1)(b)(ix) in Gawor at [11] as follows (original emphasis):

Section 43(1)(b)(ix) of the ST Act compels a strata company to make available for inspection 'any other records or documents in the custody or control of the strata company', relevantly, to a lot proprietor when that person makes a written request for access. Section 43(5) of the ST Act permits the person for whom the inspection is provided, or that person's agent, to either copy the document (but not take it away for copying) or make an extract of that document. Section 43(1a) of the ST Act confers a discretion on the strata company to provide a copy of such a document to a lot proprietor who makes a request. The strata company is not compelled by s 43(1a) of the ST Act to provide the lot proprietor with a copy of any document within s 43(1)(b)(ix) of the ST Act.

1. Section 97 enables the Tribunal to make an order, on the application of an owner, if it considers that the provision of the ST Act has not been complied with in relation to a meeting of the strata company, invalidating the resolution. This was explained in White City Investments Pty Ltd v The Owners of 43 Kinsella Street Joondanna Strata Plan 14493 [2015] WASAT 37 and Seghezzi and The Owners of 9 The Avenue Crawley Strata Plan 27842 [2013] WASAT 53.
2. In relation to s 84, the Tribunal explained in Nelson & Anor and The Owners of Mt Eliza Apartments Strata Plan 24594 [2006] WASAT 106 at [25] that:

Section 84, when read in context with the rest of the ST Act, is not a section which bestows jurisdiction on the Tribunal. It provides a power to make particular types of orders in relation to matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction[.]

(1) The State Administrative Tribunal is empowered to make an order that -

(a) requires a party to the dispute before it to pay money not exceeding the sum of $1,000 to a person specified in the order;

(b) requires a party to the dispute before it to do, or refrain from doing, some specified act to which the application relates;

(c) strikes out for want of jurisdiction the dispute before it.

(2) An order made by the State Administrative Tribunal may direct that the order shall be complied with within a period specified in the order.

(3) An order made by the State Administrative Tribunal that requires the payment of money may be made to take effect immediately or so as to take effect upon default being made in complying with some other order made by it.

1. Finally, in relation to s 81(7), the Tribunal stated in Seferovic and The Owners of Minorca Strata Plan 6593 [2017] WASAT 147 at [81] that:

... Section 81(7) of the ST Act, provides that the Tribunal 'cannot make any order for the payment of costs in connection with an application for an order', with two exceptions. As noted by the Tribunal in The Owners of St John's Court - Rivervale Strata Plan 6052 and Clark [2010] WASAT 126 [69]:

The respondents' application for costs is misconceived. By virtue of s 5 of the ST Act, in the event of any inconsistency between it and the enabling legislation under which the Tribunal exercises jurisdiction, the provisions of the enabling Act apply. Accordingly, none of the cost provisions of the SAT Act have any application in the face of s 81(7) of the ST Act which provides that the Tribunal cannot make an order for the payment of costs in connection with an application except in two particular circumstances.

1. The two exceptions as set out in s 81(7) are as follows:

(a) when allowing an applicant to amend the application, to compensate persons for time unnecessarily spent in connection with the application; or

(b) under section 103H(8).

1. Mr Banning stated that he wants the strata company to operate in a transparent way, to engage proactively with the owners and for the strata complex to operate efficiently and be cost effective.
2. Mr Banning's case and evidence is summarised as follows.

1. Mr Banning's case in respect of his s 90 application for five specified documents is summarised as follows:

(a) He wants to inspect the documents to understand Mr Thomas' roles and responsibilities, the terms of his contract including remuneration as well as his qualifications and references because he is concerned that Mr Thomas has access to all the keys of the strata complex and to the CCTV, that he can view the strata company's bank account and that he is responsible for hiring contractors and determining when they have finished the job the contractor was hired to do. Mr Banning said he is also concerned that Mr Thomas may be paid too much;

(b) He inspected documents on three separate occasions. The first time was on 11 February 2019 when he was only allowed to inspect the strata company's expenditures and minute books, the PKF Mack invoice (but not the advice) and the October 2018 AGM meeting minutes. On the second occasion, on 24 July 2019, he was presented with seven archive boxes and 6GB of electronic files. Despite asking, Mr Banning says Ms Maxwell, the strata manager, provided little assistance to locate or confirm the existence of the documents requested. The third and final occasion was on 19 August 2019 when he was presented with seven archive boxes and computer access to electronic files;

(c) Despite having been given access to records and documents, he is concerned that there is not a proper index, and that the documents do not appear to be stored in a central location but rather are stored and kept partly by the strata manager, partly by various council members, partly by the building manager and partly by others. Documents held by the building manager do not appear to be stored in the strata records. Further, the extensive number of records made it difficult for him to locate or to verify the existence of the documents he specifically requested;

(d) He found the whole inspection process to be very time consuming, delaying and bullying. He said in a normal business, all of the documents he sought would have been provided to him instantaneously;

(e) He refutes the respondent's statement that his request to inspect documents was oppressive or petty. Sending 28 to 31 emails over a period of 566 days (or, an average of about two emails per month and of which 14 emails were 'reminder' emails) to the respondent is not, in his view, oppressive or petty;

(f) The respondent does not have any discretion to refuse his request (or that of any other owner) to inspect documents under s 43. If the strata company does have such discretion, then in his view, the onus should be on the respondent (and not on him or on another owner) to make an application under s 90 seeking an order from the Tribunal;

(g) The respondent has 'impersonated' the Tribunal and has used the Tribunal's discretion (which the respondent cannot do so), to refuse his s 90 application to inspect specific documents; and

(h) He is concerned that any reference to him by the respondent as a 'de facto councillor' and/or a 'shadow councillor' is an attempt to defame, denigrate and belittle him in front of all owners and to prevent him from raising any further questions.

1. Mr Banning confirmed at the final hearing that he has inspected the email addresses of owners of the strata complex. Having inspected the email addresses of the owners, Mr Banning asserted that the respondent is now in breach of motion 12.1 of the 2018 AGM because he was given access to the owners' email addresses. Motion 12.1 read:

That the Strata Manager release owners email address to owners upon request[.]

1. At hearing Mr Banning said he was not aware of any provision of the ST Act which had not been complied with by the respondent in relation to the 2018 AGM other than in his view that the respondent is in breach of motion 12.1. Mr Banning's position is summarised as follows:

(a) Motion 12.1 conflicts with the owners' rights under the ST Act;

(b) Even though email addresses were not prevalent in 1985 when the ST Act was enacted, that Act intends for owners to be able to communicate between themselves which is why the strata roll (setting out the physical addresses of owners) was included in the ST Act and which is a document accessible to all owners;

(c) No issues arise under privacy laws if the purpose of the release of the email addresses pertains to strata body communications only. Such communications are, according to Mr Banning, owned by the strata company and under the control of the strata company; and

(d) The strata company does not have any discretion to restrict information or documents in the possession of the strata company.

1. Mr Banning conceded that there is nothing in the ST Act which sets out a time period for when minutes are required to be provided to the owners, apart from minutes of the AGM which are to be provided before the next AGM. Further, Mr Banning conceded that there is nothing in the ST Act which requires the COO minutes to be uploaded to the strata manager's portal.
2. Mr Banning acknowledged that the respondent gave an undertaking to provide unadopted minutes of the AGM and the EGM to the owners within 14 days of the relevant meeting. However, Mr Banning stressed that such an undertaking does not have the same force as an order of the Tribunal and therefore he is still seeking an order under s 84(1)(b) was 84(2) requiring the respondent to produce minutes of meetings (AGM, EGM and COO) within two weeks of the meeting and then for those minutes to be uploaded to the strata manager's portal for access by all the owners.
3. Mr Banning's position is summarised as follows:

(a) Minutes of the AGM and the COO are published three to six months after the meeting is held with the result that the minutes lose their value over time;

(b) Owners should be aware of the actions of the COO on a timely basis as they give a status and an update of what is happening in the strata complex;

(c) The timely release of minutes is a good business practice and allows owners to discuss, review and consider issues that affect all owners in the strata complex;

(d) The respondent's undertaking is for unadopted minutes of AGMs and EGMs. The undertaking does not include COO minutes; and

(e) The Tribunal in Horne and The Owners of Aqueous Apartments Strata Plan 51953 (CC 406 of 2015) (Horne) made orders by consent of the parties whereby the strata council was required to provide in electronic format as soon as possible after the meeting, minutes of the COO and general meetings. To require the strata company to have available electronic minutes of meetings in a timely manner is therefore not interfering with the management and decision­making of the respondent but rather enforcing a reasonable business practice which is beneficial for all the owners.

1. Finally, Mr Banning seeks and order from the Tribunal under s 81(7)(a) with 84(1)(a) for the respondent to pay him $1,000 for the time he says he spent (approximately 40 hours) in preparing his written submissions and making his application to the Tribunal.
2. Mr Banning's position is summarised as follows:

(a) The respondent failed to apply to the Tribunal seeking an order to refuse his request to inspect specific documents. Because of this failure, he was required to make an application under s 90 to the Tribunal;

(b) It was only after he made his s 90 application to the Tribunal that the respondent allowed him to inspect documents. The respondent did this so that he would withdraw his application (which he has not done so);

(c) He spent much time on his submissions to the Tribunal, gathering all the paperwork and going to the hearings; and

(d) He wants to 'make a statement' by seeking an order requiring the respondent to pay him $1,000 to make it clear that he should have been provided the specific documents unless the respondent has an order from the Tribunal to the contrary.

1. The respondent submitted that while Mr Banning is an enthusiastic and engaged owner, he is misguided as to the respondent's obligations, particularly in regards to s 43. Further, the respondent says that Mr Banning has refused 'to let [the matter] go' (ts 87 12 September 2019). In short, the respondent's position is that Mr Banning was given the opportunity to inspect all the documents and records of the strata company on at least two occasions and therefore there is no basis for the s 90 application. In respect of the other three orders sought by Mr Banning, the respondent's position is that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make the orders sought by Mr Banning and in the event the Tribunal does have jurisdiction, the respondent says it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to exercise any discretion to make the orders sought by Mr Banning.
2. The respondent's case and evidence are summarised as follows.

1. The respondent submitted that it has met its obligations under s 43 as Mr Banning was given the opportunity to inspect all the documents and records of the strata company on three separate occasions, most recently on 19 August 2019 with Ms Maxwell, the strata manager, in attendance. The respondent's position is summarised as follows:

(a) The first inspection was on 11 February 2019. It was a limited inspection by Mr Banning where he inspected records and documents including the hard copy minutes book and accounts from 1 July 2018 to 31 December 2018. The second inspection was on 23 July 2019. At that inspection, Mr Banning had access to seven archive boxes and a laptop on which the desktop had a folder named '9704' which contained 13,516 files and within it 45 sub folders. The folder contained 6.19GB of data. Finally, the most recent inspection was on 19 August 2019. At that inspection, Mr Banning had access to the minute books, seven archive boxes and a laptop which had on its desktop a folder named '9704' which contained over 13,500 files and 6.24GB of data. On that basis alone the respondent says there is no basis for the order sought by Mr Banning under s 90 of the ST Act. In respect of the second and third inspections, Mr Banning had the opportunity to inspect all the documents of the strata company between the hours of 10.00 am to 4.00 pm;

(b) Mr Banning has made a 'mountain out of a molehill' (referring to the phrase used by Kenneth Martin J in Maguire at [61]) because in cross-examination Mr Banning confirmed that he has inspected various versions including some duplicates of a draft employment contract for Mr Thomas, and that he has inspected documents of, or lists of the roles and responsibilities of the building manager;

(c) Mr Banning seeks verification from the strata company as to existence or otherwise of documents. The decision in Maguire is clear that the strata company has no such obligation;

(d) Mr Banning's s 90 application does not arise out of any belief that the documents requested actually exist and that the strata company declined to allow him to inspect them. Rather, his s 90 application is aimed at allowing Mr Banning to later make a point to other owners about decisions taken (or not taken) by the COO. In this regard, Mr Banning did not disclose to the Tribunal his voluminous earlier requests to the strata company for information and for copies of documents, nor the responses to those requests and that Mr Banning's motivation for his s 90 application is an assertion that there has been a 'lack of due diligence' by the strata council concerning the building manager;

(e) Mr Banning sees his role as a 'de facto' councillor or a 'shadow councillor' second guessing decisions taken by the COO. This is supported by the documents submitted to the Tribunal which show that:

(i) Mr Banning has reviewed and challenged many of the decisions of the elected COO;

(ii) When Mr Banning receives an answer to a question about a decision of the COO that prompts another question from him;

(iii) Mr Banning has received answers to most of his questions about decision taken; and

(iv) The COO and the strata manager have spent much time answering Mr Banning's queries, to the best of their ability, notwithstanding that they are under no obligation under the ST Act or the by-laws to provide answers to, or information in response to Mr Banning's queries;

(f) Mr Banning has engaged in discreditable conduct when giving evidence at the final hearing in that he attempted to split hairs between what his view was about information within an information sheet circulated to owners before the 2018 AGM and what Ms Ezekiel's view of information was that led to the circulation of that sheet. That information sheet listed both Mr Banning and Ms Ezekiel as the authors; and

(g) When Mr Banning did not get his way based on his view of what s 43 obliged the strata manager and strata company to do, he sent an email to Ms Maxwell on 6 December 2018 threatening to cause commercial damage to the strata manager by stating:

[A]gain I find it very unprofessional of Southern [Strata] to not respon[d] to my email if only to say that you have receive[d] it and will respond. Southern has failed to respond to many of my emails and caused me to continue to repeatedly ask the same questions. Is it really necessary for me to address this issue on social media, Facebook, Flat Chat, LookUpStrata, SCA, Landgate, local newspapers and etc?

1. The respondent submitted that this is no longer an issue because Mr Banning conceded that he has inspected the owners' email addresses. Further, and in any event, the respondent says that Mr Banning has not pointed to any provision in the ST Act which the respondent has not been complied with in regards to the conduct of the 2018 AGM.
2. Finally, the respondent stated that motion 12.1 was not passed and is merely a decision of the owners seeking to maintain their privacy. The respondent accepted that such a motion in an event cannot override s 43(1)(ix) as that section provides that all owners may inspect any other record or document in the custody or under the control of the strata company.

1. The respondent is of the view that there is no provision in the ST Act that requires the strata manager to upload minutes of meetings within two weeks of the meeting as requested by Mr Banning. Further, the respondent disputes that the order sought by Mr Banning can be made by the Tribunal under s 84. This is because that section does not provide a separate head of jurisdiction for the Tribunal to make orders. Finally, the respondent suggests that Mr Banning is actually seeking an order under s 90 (and not s 84) to require the strata company to provide a copy of minutes of meetings within two weeks of the meeting. However, the respondent submitted that the provision of copies of documents is a decision that the strata company may make either to accede to that request or not.
2. The respondent submitted that the schedule submitted by Mr Banning shows that at least half of the COO minutes are uploaded to the portal within eight weeks of the meeting. Finally, the respondent submitted that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to make an order requiring minutes to be uploaded within two weeks of the meeting because it would require that the COO to meet, produce draft minutes, approve those minutes within the COO meeting, and then arrange for the approved minutes to be uploaded to the portal. In any event, the respondent submitted that the current strata manager has a portal but that may not be the case for a future strata manager of Terrace Place.

1. The respondent submitted that there is no basis for compensation to be paid to Mr Banning.
2. In conclusion, the respondent submitted that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make the orders sought by Mr Banning under s 81, s 84 and s 97, and even if the Tribunal did have jurisdiction, the respondent submitted that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to make the orders sought for the following reasons:

(a) The management of a strata company is best left to the strata company and that the Tribunal should not too readily impose its own views of what is reasonable: Council of Owners ­ Strata Plan 8969 and Cleaver­Wilkinson [2013] WASAT 196 at [14] (Cleaver-Wilkinson).

(b) The scope for intervention by the Tribunal in the day­to-day internal management decisions of a strata company and its council is, under the ST Act, generally quite specific; usually quite limited and often only available as a last resort: Gawor at [69].

(c) The dissatisfaction with the management of a strata company ought to be addressed at a general meeting of owners and that the Tribunal should be slow to interfere with the strata company but it will intervene where the strata company acts unreasonably: The Owners of St John's Court ­ Rivervale Strata Plan 6052 and Clark (No 2) [2011] WASAT 16 at [42] (Owners of St John's Court).

(d) It is possible for persons acting reasonably to come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts: Cleaver­Wilkinson at [14(3)].

Did the respondent wrongfully fail to make available to Mr Banning (or his agent) to inspect, copy or make an extract of the five specific documents identified by Mr Banning in breach of s 43(1)(b)(ix)? If 'No', can the Tribunal make an order under s 90 in any event?

1. Mr Banning went to great length to explain that he did not want to inspect all the documents held or under the control of the strata company. Rather, he said he made a 'big effort to never say all' (ts 38, 12 September 2019) as he only wanted to inspect specific documents including documents about Mr Thomas, such as his employment records whether archived or in electronic format (ts 38, 12 September 2019).
2. Mr Banning asserted that when he asked for a contract, he expected to get the contract and that he should not have to decide for himself whether or not the contract is for a particular person (ts 35, 12 September 2019). In this regard, Mr Banning expressed his concern that on 23 July 2019 'all of the documents were given to me [Mr Banning]; not the five documents or the six documents that I was looking for' (ts 36, 12 September 2019). However, by the end of his inspection on 23 July 2019, Mr Banning understood that there were versions or duplicates of the contract and of the roles and responsibilities relating to the building manager (ts 37, 12 September 2019).
3. In undertaking his inspection, Mr Banning explained that he reviewed correspondence from 2013 as well as taking pictures of the laptop screen which he said he was able to move around the laptop's folders using the search function but with great difficulty (ts 41-43, 12 September 2019).
4. Mr Banning confirmed that he undertook his inspection of the seven archived boxes and searching the laptop folder '9704' during the hours from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm on 19 August 2019. He said Ms Maxwell was in attendance and that Mr Box was also in attendance for part of the time and that Mr Box assisted him in inspecting documents as well as searching for documents on the laptop (ts 41-43, 12 September 2019).
5. In relation to Mr Thomas, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Criddle that he advised the 2018 AGM of a draft contract that had been put to Mr Thomas for his consideration. Mr Criddle explained that there was no one specific document that he could point to that says, '[t]his is the contract' (ts 75, 12 September 2019 12). Rather, Mr Criddle said that the contract between the COO and Mr Thomas is partly in writing being the 2013 contract, and it is partly verbal in that Mr Thomas takes directions from the COO, and it is partly implied from the conduct of the parties in that Mr Thomas continues to perform duties (ts 75, 12 September 2019). Further, Mr Criddle explained that Mr Thomas has roles and responsibilities and that they are described in the draft contract that was provided to Mr Thomas for signing (ts 76, 12 September 2019).
6. Mr Criddle was clear that Mr Banning was 'provided with copies of all documents that were within the possession and power of the strata' and that included the draft contract which included the roles and responsibilities of Mr Thomas (ts 74 and 76-77, 12 September 2019). In response to Mr Banning's question, as to why he was not presented with the specific documents that he requested, Mr Criddle explained (ts 80­81, 12 September 2019):

[T]he difficulty with trying to accede to your request is that some of the documents requested weren't in existence. So things like police certificates, CVs and the like. To my knowledge they weren't in existence, they may have been, because I wasn't on council at the time. So I was happy that you have the right to inspect, to determine for yourself, whether those documents existed or not. So in relation to those, there was issues [in] relation to their existence.

...

Your constant requests which led to numerous other requests were such that I, personally, didn't believe that if I said, 'We don't have those documents,' that you would believe that. So what you were provided with was everything that the strata company had for you to work out for yourself whether your request had been complied with.

...

I was complying with what I was led to believe was the obligation of the strata company to provide documents. And that resulted in the provision of all documents in the strata's position.

1. Mr Banning did not appear to accept Mr Criddle's explanation, and so he asked Mr Criddle why he was not allowed to view information from January 2018 through to about April 2019 until he lodged his application with the Tribunal. Mr Criddle replied as follows (ts 84, 12 September 2019):

You were asking for a number of documents that, to the knowledge of the strata, didn't exist. And you persisted in that notwithstanding that you were told, at the AGM in 2018, that a contract had been prepared and was awaiting signature by - by Paul Thomas. So you - you had everything that we had. We didn't have a signed contract and still haven't got a signed contract. Your request that identified particular documents was such that it was extremely difficult to meet that request. In relation to the documents that didn't exist, obviously, we couldn't provide them. ... We didn't have a signed contract that we could say to you, 'Here's the contract, Mr Banning.' And in relation to police clearances, CVs and the like, those documents didn't exist.

1. In regards to Mr Banning's requests to inspect documents, the Tribunal finds that Mr Banning was given ample opportunity to inspect all records and documents in the custody or under the control of the strata company on at least two occasions on 23 July 2019 and on 19 August 2019 during the hours of 10.00 am to 4.00 pm. This is supported by Mr Banning's concession that he inspected various versions and duplicates of an employment contract for Mr Thomas. Further, Mr Banning conceded that he had inspected two sets of a document setting out the roles and responsibilities of the building manager. In addition, Mr Banning conceded that he had inspected some documents which set out complaints about the building manager.
2. In regards to the inspection, s 43(1)(5) allows Mr Banning to take extracts from, or make a copy of, the document but may not, without the consent of the strata company remove the document from the custody of the strata company for the purpose of the inspecting the document, take extracts therefrom, or make a copy of it. It is uncontested that Mr Banning took copies of documents and screen shots of documents and information sourced on the laptop.
3. Mr Banning stated that he sent 28 to 31 emails over a period of 566 days to the respondent (or an average of about two emails per month and of which 14 were reminder emails). He was clearly frustrated in doing this, because in an email to 'Robin and Ted' (COO members) he stated (ts 39, 12 September 2019):

It is my understanding that the Council is required by the Strata Act to accept and reply to correspondence from owners. Council is obligated via the Act to reply to owners' questions, not just acknowledge receipt.

...

The email you sent below answers some of my questions, but not all of the questions. I'm still waiting specific replies to my email questions which have not been answered.

1. Mr Banning also resorted to sending a strongly worded email to Ms Maxwell on 6 December 2018 when he stated in part: 'Southern has failed to respond to many of my emails and caused me to continue to repeatedly ask the same questions'.
2. Mr Banning is misguided. There is no obligation under the ST Act that requires the strata company to answer questions put by an owner. As explained in Owners of St John's Court, any dissatisfaction Mr Banning has with the strata company ought to be raised by him at the AGM. Importantly, Maguire makes it clear that there is no obligation on the strata company to state whether or not a document exists in response to a request to do so from Mr Banning (or any other owner).
3. In this case, the Tribunal accepts that the strata company (and the strata manager) have over an extended period of time endeavoured to answer questions put by Mr Banning.
4. Further, it is clear that there is no obligation under the ST Act that requires the strata company to have available for inspection the specific document(s) requested by Mr Banning. Rather, all that s 43(1)(b) requires is that upon receiving an application in writing from Mr Banning and on the payment of the prescribed fee (if any), the strata company is required to make available for inspection by Mr Banning, or his agent the documents and records set out in s 43(1)(b)(i) through to (viii) and per s 43(1)(b)(ix) any 'other record or document in the custody or under the control of the strata company'. The Tribunal accepted Mr Criddle's uncontested evidence regarding the strata company's provision of all of its records and documents in its custody or under its control on at least two occasions on 23 July 2019 and 19 August 2019 to Mr Banning for his inspection.
5. Mr Banning was concerned that documents appeared not to be in any order. However, there is no requirement in the ST Act which requires the respondent to re-order its documents to meet the purposes or needs of Mr Banning (or any other owner).
6. Even though Mr Banning continued to contest that he has not inspected the asset register, the Tribunal accepted Mr Criddle's evidence that there is no asset register but only a deprecation schedule which is prepared by an external accountant and that schedule is provided to all owners at the end of each financial year which lists the strata company's assets that have been depreciated over time (ts 85, 12 September 2019). As there is no asset register, the Tribunal concludes there is nothing the strata company can make available for Mr Banning to inspect.
7. Similarly, in regards to a police clearance for Mr Thomas, the Tribunal accepted Mr Criddle's uncontested evidence that he explained to the 2018 AGM that a police clearance had not been sought and it was not intended to seek a police clearance for Mr Thomas (ts 82, 12 September 2019). The Tribunal finds that Mr Banning has known since the 2018 AGM that the strata company did not have and did not intend to seek a police clearance for Mr Thomas. In continuing to seek to inspect a document (a police clearance or any security certification) that does not exist, it is the Tribunal's view that Mr Banning has acted unreasonably, oppressively and obsessively.
8. In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the strata company did make available for Mr Banning for his inspection and to take extracts therefrom or to make a copy of all of its records and documents in its custody or under its control on at least two occasions on 23 July 2019 and 19 August 2019. Further, the Tribunal finds that the respondent has not wrongfully withheld any information or failed to make available for inspection by Mr Banning or his agent a record or document that he was entitled to inspect.
9. The Tribunal concludes therefore that Mr Banning's application under s 90 is misguided and must fail.

Did the respondent fail to comply with the provisions of the ST Act in relation to the October 2018 AGM? If 'No', can the Tribunal make an order under s 97 in any event?

1. It is common ground that Mr Banning has inspected the owners' email addresses.
2. Even though motion 12.1 was not passed, in the Tribunal's view, this does not mean that the respondent has breached that motion as alleged by Mr Banning. This is because, as the respondent correctly submitted, a decision of the owners to maintain their privacy by not disclosing their email addresses cannot override s 43(1)(ix). That section is clear. It provides that owners may inspect any other record or document in the custody or under the control of the strata company.
3. The Tribunal therefore concludes that Mr Banning's application under s 97 is misguided and must fail.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction under s 84(1)(b) with 84(2) to order the respondent to produce the minutes of the AGM, EGM and COO meetings within two weeks of the meeting and for those minutes to be uploaded on the strata manager's portal within the same time period?

1. As explained earlier, s 84 when read in context with the rest of the ST Act is not a section which bestows jurisdiction on the Tribunal. It does provide a power to make particular types of orders in relation to matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Mr Banning's application under s 84 is in the Tribunal's view is misconceived and must fail.
2. While Mr Banning's view is that it is good business practice for minutes to be released on a timely basis, the respondent is correct in its submission that the ST Act does not require minutes to be uploaded to the strata manager's portal or to be available within two weeks of the meeting being held.
3. Mr Banning referred to Horne in support of his view that minutes should be uploaded within a short period of time. The decision in that case is of no relevance here. The reason is that the Tribunal in that case made an order by consent of the parties. There is no consent by the parties in this case.
4. Finally, the table prepared by Mr Banning entitled 'Meeting Minutes Published Dates' (SDOC04) shows that the majority of COO minutes were published within eight weeks of the meeting date. The draft 2018 AGM minutes were published in January 2019 approximately three months after the meeting (and not February 2019 as stated by Mr Banning in his table). While these timeframes appear to be not reasonable to Mr Banning, the Tribunal agrees with the view expressed in Cleaver-Wilkinson at [14], that the management of the strata company is best left to the strata company and that the Tribunal should not too readily impose its own view of what is reasonable. The Tribunal therefore concludes that Mr Banning's application is misconceived and must fail.
5. Finally, it is the Tribunal's view that, even if Mr Banning had made his application under s 90, the Tribunal would not have exercised its discretion under s 90 in this case to make the order sought as it is open for Mr Banning to raise any dissatisfaction with the management of the COO at the next AGM including for example the time period in which the strata company is to publish the minutes: Owners of St John's Court.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to order the respondent to pay to Mr Banning $1,000 under s 81(7) with 84(1)(a) for the time Mr Banning says he has spent in preparing his application and making submissions?

1. Mr Banning seeks an order for 'reimbursement of $1,000' (40 hours at $25/hour for Mr Banning's time and costs 'in preparing the unnecessary application to the SAT for viewing of documents that have been wrongly, wilful and intentionally withheld by the strata'). The ST Act is clear on this point. Section 81(7) provides that the Tribunal 'cannot make any order for the payment of costs in connection with an application for an order', with two exceptions. As noted by the Tribunal in Owners of St John's Court at [69]:

The respondents' application for costs is misconceived. By virtue of s 5 of the SAT Act, in the event of any inconsistency between it and the enabling legislation under which the Tribunal exercises jurisdiction, the provisions of the enabling Act apply. Accordingly, none of the cost provisions of the SAT Act have any application in the face of s 81(7) of the ST Act which provides that the Tribunal cannot make an order for the payment of costs in connection with an application except in two particular circumstances.

1. Neither of the two exceptions in s 81(7) apply in this case. The first exception operates when an applicant is allowed to amend his application to compensate persons (for example, the respondent) for time unnecessarily spent in connection with the application. In this case Mr Banning sought to amend his application (by withdrawing parts of his application and amending the sections of the ST Act under which he sought the orders) after the respondent had given its response to the application. It is the Tribunal's view therefore that time was spent unnecessarily by the respondent in connection with Mr Banning's application. The other exception concerns variation of unit entitlements. That is not an issue in the present case.
2. The Tribunal concludes that Mr Banning's application for an order under s 81(7) with 84(1)(a) is misconceived and must fail.

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal will dismiss Mr Banning's application.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.