//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2006] WASAT 243
State Administrative Tribunal (WA)
2006-08-22
Original judgment source is linked above.
the applicant may apply for costs in respect of the proceedings.
3. If the applicant makes application for costs the respondents may on or before 19 September 2006 file a written outline of submissions opposing the application.
4. If the applicant makes application for costs, subsequent to 19 September 2006, the Tribunal shall issue directions as to whether the application shall be determined on the documents, or whether the matter shall be set down for oral submissions, or any other procedures followed as the Tribunal considers fit.
I certify that this and the preceding [44] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR C RAYMOND, SENIOR MEMBER
Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 131 ALR 595
R v Thomas; Ex parte Sheldons Consolidated Pty Ltd [1982] VicRp 64; [1982] VR 617
Re Monger; Ex Parte Cook's Construction Pty Ltd [2004] WASCA 165
Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd and Edwards & Anor [2005] WASAT 119
Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd v Edwards & Anor [2006] WASC 45
"The inability to agree provided for by s 93D(5) was described by Murray J (with whom the other members of the Court were in agreement) in Re Monger; Ex parte Velsberry Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 9 at [38] as a 'jurisdictional prerequisite'. In my opinion, it was rightly so described.
...
It follows that neither of the prerequisites to a valid Form 22 referral provided for by s 93D(5) and s 93D(6) of the Act was satisfied, with the consequence that the referral was invalid and could not lawfully be acted upon by the Director or Acting Director..."
(1995) 131 ALR 595