//
[2025] WASAT 28
General information, not legal advice.
State Administrative Tribunal (WA)
2025-04-04
Original judgment source is linked above.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
[1] Under s 38(1)(b) of the Complaint Resolution Act, if the Tribunal is not satisfied that a regulated building service (as defined in the Act) has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory the Tribunal may decline to make a building remedy order, in which case the Tribunal will dismiss the building service complaint.
[2] Under s 58(2) of the Complaint Resolution Act, a party may apply to the Tribunal (to be constituted by a judicial member or a legally qualified senior member, and such other members, if any, as the President considers appropriate) for the review of an order that was made under s 38 of the Act by the Tribunal when constituted without a judicial member. The Tribunal for this decision is constituted by Senior Member Aitken, who is a legally qualified senior member.
[3] Under rule 10 of the State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA) (SAT Rules) the Tribunal may extend the time fixed under s 58(5)(b) of the Complaint Resolution Act.
[4] For example, see the decision of Barker J in O'Connor and Town of Victoria Park [2005] WASAT 161 at [38] to [41] and the decision of Hall J in Di Virgilio v McCleary [2012] WASC 437 at [38] to [41].
[5] Rule 9 sets the 28 day limit by reference to s 20(1), s 20(5) and s 3(3)(a) of the SAT Act, none of which apply to decisions which fall under s 58 of the Complaint Resolution Act.
[6] O'Connor and Town of Victoria Park at [49].
Di Virgilio v McCleary [2012] WASC 437
Goedhart and Western Australian Planning Commission [2006] WASAT 49
O'Connor and Town of Victoria Park [2005] WASAT 161
(1998) 195 CLR 516