SAJE [2026] WASAT 27 (31 March 2026)

Should Leave be Granted to Bring the Present Application

1. In the 2025 Strike Out Reasons, Member Cade struck out order 1 of CC 435 of 2024 and its associated grounds (grounds 1, 6, 7 and 8) because:
   1. as noted above, they were substantially similar to the grounds to and order 2 of CC 787 of 2022 and grounds 1 and 2 and order 2 of CC 99 of 2024;
   2. CC 787 of 2022 had been dismissed with Dr Saje's consent and CC 99 of 2024 had been determined following a hearing with orders made dismissing the proceeding.
   3. to allow order 1 of CC 435 of 2024 and its associated grounds (grounds 1, 6, 7 and 8) to continue would cause oppression to the Strata Company and the relevant owners because:

(a) despite consenting to the dismissal of CC 787 of 2022, Dr Saje had commenced another proceeding, requiring the owners and Strata Company 'to devote their time and attention to grounds which have been dismissed in a prior proceeding';[8] and

(b) while 'Dr Saje has had the merits of the strata management contract considered by the Tribunal at a final hearing in CC 99/24' and, although dissatisfied with the result, she did not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court but, rather, 'simply commenced yet another application in the Tribunal in respect of the same grounds with the result that the Strata Company and the other lot owners will have to devote time and attention responding to a ground that has been decided in a previous proceeding'.[9]

(c) to allow order 1 of CC 435/2024 and its associated grounds (grounds 1, 6, 7 and 8) to continue, despite the previous dismissal of CC 787 of 2022 and CC 99 of 2024, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute because it would:[10]

1. undermine the principle of finality in litigation;
2. constitute a collateral attack on the Tribunal's decision;
3. be inconsistent with a primary objective of the Tribunal under s 9 of the SAT Act, being 'to act as speedily ... as is practicable and minimise the costs to parties'.
4. In my view, the same can be said of Order 1 and Order 2 of the Present Application and their associated grounds. The Present Application represents another attempt by Dr Saje to attack the validity of the contractual arrangements between the Strata Company and the strata manager which has already been the subject of previous proceedings.
5. As noted by President Pritchard in Spiro, the interests of justice 'would hardly be served' by granting leave and permitting the same applicant to pursue a proceeding of the same kind which has previously been struck out as misconceived, frivolous or vexatious. The same applies where the proceeding was struck out as an abuse of process.
6. Accordingly, I would refuse leave as to Orders 1 and 2 and their associated grounds.

1. In the 2025 Strike Out Reasons, Member Cade struck out orders 2 and 3 of CC 435 of 2024 and their associated grounds (including grounds 2 and 3) because:[11]
   1. they had been the subject of evidence in CC 99 of 2024 and were dismissed;
   2. to allow them to continue in CC 435 of 2024 would cause oppression to the Strata Company and the relevant owners and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, for the same reasons as he gave as to order 1 of CC 435/2024 and its associated grounds (grounds 1, 6, 7 and 8).
2. In my view, the same can be said of Order 3 and its associated grounds in the Present Application. They are simply another attempt by Dr Saje to seek return of the contested monies which has already been the subject of previous proceedings.
3. As I said above in paragraph [61], the interests of justice 'would hardly be served' by granting leave and permitting the same applicant to pursue a proceeding of the same kind as one which was previously struck out as an abuse of process.
4. Accordingly, I would refuse leave as to Order 3 and its associated grounds.

1. For the foregoing reasons, I will refuse Dr Saje leave to commence the Present Application.
2. In closing I consider it prudent to return to the topic discussed above at paragraphs [11] to [20].
3. In those paragraphs I noted DP Pritchard's decision in Laurent, with which I agree. I also noted, however, that that approach (i.e. that s 47 of the SAT Act allows for the striking out of only part of a proceeding) appears inconsistent with the statutory language of that section, and particularly so when it is contrasted with the language of s 46 and s 50.
4. If I am wrong, and s 47 allows only for the striking out of the entirety of a proceeding, then it may be that leave under s 49 of the SAT Act is not required to bring the Present Application.
5. If that is the case, I would dismiss the Present Application under s 47 of the SAT Act for the same reasons as I would have refused leave under s 49 of that SAT Act.

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

[1] Antony and S. Omar Perdana Pty Ltd [2009] WASAT 96.

[2] Nugawela and Medical Board of Australia [2021] WASAT 147.

[3] Saje and The Owners of 36B Third Avenue, Mt Lawley Strata Plan 21602 [2025] WASAT 61, citing Efficient Building Team Pty Ltd and Perth Recruitment Services Pty Ltd [2023] WASAT 37, [30] per M Petrucci. See, also De Alwis and Commissioner for Corrective Services [2017] WASAT 17, [27] per DP Sharp; and Owners of Strata Plan 49313 and Psaros Pty Ltd [2019] WASAT 51, [48] per M Wallace.

[5] 2025 Strike Out Reasons, [84(1)], [87].

[7] See, also, the 2025 Strike Out Reasons, [92] - [93].

[10] 2025 Strike Out Reasons, [58] - [60] and [91].

[11] 2025 Strike Out Reasons, [95] - [97].