... Apart from some (minor and somewhat rare) exceptions not relevant to these proceedings, such as that found in s 87(3) of the SAT Act, a party who represents himself or herself in the Tribunal will not be granted costs for his or her own time preparing and presenting his or her case (this includes a Director of a company) ...

1. Some decisions of the Tribunal indicate that an exception to this general rule may be where a party is represented by a non-legal advocate or is claiming for its travel costs. For example, in Springmist Pty Ltd and Shire of Augusta­Margaret River (Springmist),[3] the Tribunal, after examining the operation of similar legislation in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998 (Vic) stated:
   1. The effect of s 87(3) is that the expenses that may be recovered are not limited to the traditional notion of legal costs, but can include other expenses and loss in connection with the conduct of the proceedings before the Tribunal. For example, the costs may include the costs of a non lawyer advocate, the expenses of a party having to travel to a hearing or some amount which compensates a party for the inconvenience or expense of its participation in the proceedings.
2. However, even on the basis of these exceptions I would find the respondent is not able to recover its costs. This is because the respondent did not seek leave for the respondent to be represented by a non-lawyer advocate, but rather chose to be (capably) represented by its directors at the hearing. The respondent has also not claimed for travel costs or other incidentals.
3. I therefore find that there should be no order as to costs.
4. Finally, I turn to the respondent's claim that I should make orders requiring the applicant desist from 'posting offensive and malicious statements about the Directors' and their businesses on the social media pages of various residential parks operated by the respondent.
5. I do not, however, have any power under the RP Act or the SAT Act to make such an order, and so I will not make the order.

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

[1] I note that this case refers in turn to other decisions made by the Tribunal. However, for convenience, and as I accept that the decisions are correctly summarised, I will refer only to this decision.

[2] Madame Ma's Proprietary Ltd and City of Perth [2019] WASAT 131 (S) [24].

[3] Springmist Pty Ltd and Shire of Augusta-Margaret River [2005] WASAT 143 (S); (2005) 41 SR (WA) 207.