//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2012] WASAT 185
State Administrative Tribunal (WA)
2012-09-04
Original judgment source is linked above.
I certify that this and the preceding [140] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Kozanoglu v The Pharmacy Board of Australia [2011] VCAT 2085
Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Gandini [2006] WASAT 163
Liddell and Medical Board of Australia [2012] WASAT 120
Lindsay v New South Wales Medical Board [2008] NSWSC 40
139 The Board foreshadowed an application for costs under s 87(2) of the SAT Act. The Tribunal's established practice in relation to the exercise of its discretion as to costs under s 87(2) of the SAT Act in review, including vocational review, proceedings is that normally each party should bear its own costs of the proceedings: see Stephenson and The Legal Practice Board [2007] WASAT 259 at [47] [49]. However, as the Board has indicated that it may seek an order for costs, it should be given a short opportunity to consider whether it wishes to do so and to file and serve submissions in support. The practitioner should have an opportunity to respond to any submissions and the issue of costs, if argued, should be determined entirely on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the SAT Act.
(1938) 60 CLR 336