//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2013] WASAT 13
State Administrative Tribunal (WA)
2013-01-30
Original judgment source is linked above.
I certify that this and the preceding [85] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
Barminco Investments Pty Ltd & Anor v O'Brien [2006] WASCA 88
Carey Re; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd (2006) 32 WAR 501; [2006] WASCA 219
Colley v Futurebrand FHA Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 223
Content Living and Roberts [2012] WASAT 194
Dossett v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 69; (2003) 218 CLR 1
Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32; (1999) 21 WAR 226
Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee and Segler [2009] WASAT 205
Port of Melbourne Authority and Anshun Proprietary Limited [1981] HCA 45; (1981) 147 CLR 589
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Barrett [1945] HCA 50; (1945) 70 CLR 141
Resort Management Services Limited v Noosa Shire Council [1996] QCA 441; [1997] 2 Qd R 291
Riley v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 190
Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd and Edwards & Anor [2005] WASAT 119
Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd v Edwards & Anor [2006] WASC 45
Well Holdings Pty Ltd v Agostino [2001] WADC 174
Wing Luck Foods v Lay Choo Lim [1989] WAR 358
In my view, the reference made by the Judicial Committee to an 'act done by an individual towards availing himself of that right' was intended as an example of a way in which a general right might be converted into a specific right in the sense referred to by Atkin L.J. It is one of the criteria, but not an essential one, which are used to identify those cases in which it would not be just to deprive a person of his or her expectations under a repealed statute. This was the point made by Sugerman P., with whom Holmes J.A. agreed, in Boyce v. Hughes [(1970) 72 SR (NSW) 54 at 57]:
It is not, however, essential in my opinion, although it commonly happens, that the acquisition or accrual of the specific right should occur by virtue of some act done on the part of the individual who acquires it or to whom it accrues. The right may be acquired or accrue by reason of the happening of an event specified by the statute which is independent of the act of the individual concerned. (emphasis added)
A similar view was expressed by Asprey J.A., and the reasons of Sugerman P. were approved by a majority of the High Court in Mathieson v. Burton [(1971) [1971] HCA 4; 124 CLR 1].
(2003) 218 CLR 1
(1991) 6 WAR 72
(2006) 32 WAR 501
(1999) 21 WAR 226
(1981) 147 CLR 589
(1945) 70 CLR 141