State Administrative Tribunal (WA)|2025-10-03|Before: Mr P

The applicant in this proceeding adduced probative evidence in support of its position that structural alterations to Lot 9 have taken place without the approval of the Strata Company. No evidence was adduced by the respondent to the contrary. Consequently, I am satisfied that the respondent may have carried out unauthorised structural alterations to Lot 9 in contravention of s 87(2) of the ST Act. Further, based on the evidence of Mr Roberson, which I accept, I am satisfied that the fire rating of the front entry door of Lot 9 may have been affected by the installation of a non-fire-rated door handle.
The respondent tendered in evidence a text message that Dr Zaghloul had received from the owner of Lot 7 before the application was commenced in the Tribunal.[44] The respondent contends that the text message supports a finding that water ingress to Lot 7 is no longer a problem and, therefore, an inspection of Lot 9 is unwarranted.[45] However, I heard evidence that, as recently as 13 August 2025, the owner of Lot 7 wrote to the strata manager of the Scheme stating that repairs to the laundry ceiling needed to be redone because there was water leaking through the ceiling.[46] Further, Mr Kolk gave evidence that the silicone applied in the laundry of Lot 9 might be preventing water egress to Lot 7 but that it is not necessarily a long-term solution and warrants investigation. He also considered that the shower area of Lot 9, which permits water to track to the balcony of Lot 9, is responsible for the water seen cascading from the spigot in the video taken on the morning of the hearing.
The respondent's representative, Dr Zaghloul, referred the Tribunal to an email from a plumber dated 7 July 2025 who had inspected Lot 9 and observed water behind the fridge which was running under the tiles into the bathroom area.[47] However, Dr Zaghloul did not call the plumber to give evidence and, consequently, the weight that I can give to the email is limited. Nor did Dr Zaghloul call any other licensed plumber or registered builder to support his position that structural alterations to Lot 9 were not the source of water egress from the lot to Lot 7 or other lots in the Scheme.

(d) Finally, access to Lot 9 is for the purposes of allowing representatives of the applicant to inspect internal works to the lot and to take photographs, both of which are relatively benign activities. The inspection is necessary for the applicant to determine if Lot 9 is the source of water egress to other lots in the Scheme. If temporary access to Lot 9 is denied, there is the potential for the applicant and lot owners to suffer harm and loss from moisture damage to the Scheme building which I consider outweighs any inconvenience to the respondent in granting relief. Consequently, I find that the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

For these reasons, I will allow the application and make an order pursuant to s 200(1)(m) of the ST Act and s 201(1) of the ST Act granting the applicant access to Lot 9, on an interim basis of 3 months, to enable the Strata Company to inspect the lot for the purposes of investigating whether water ingress to other lots in the Scheme emanates from Lot 9, and to determine whether the front entry door to Lot 9 complies with current fire standards.
The applicant seeks access to Lot 9, on a temporary basis, for the purposes of carrying out a non-invasive inspection and to take photographs, which I consider are activities that are unlikely to cause harm to the respondent's property. Having regard to the nature and purpose of the inspection, I do not consider that requiring the applicant to give an undertaking as to damages is necessary in the circumstances of this case.
Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, I am satisfied that the attendees permitted to inspect Lot 9 should extend to a licensed plumber, water leak detection contractors, building consultants and fire experts (order 3).
The respondent opposed the attendance at the inspection by representatives of the CoO and the strata manager and, as the applicant did not object to this course, I have included this limitation in order 4. For the sake of clarity, order 4 does not prevent the applicant's solicitors from attending Lot 9 to co-ordinate the inspection by the attendees listed in order 3.
To assist in identifying the possible source of water egress from Lot 9, I will make an order, consistent with the minute prepared by the applicant's solicitors, that the attendees for the inspection must prepare a report on their findings and on the scope of any remediation works if required. The attendees are also permitted to take photographs for the purpose of preparing their reports to the Strata Company.
Finally, to ensure that the inspection is at a convenient time to the respondent, I will make an order requiring the applicant to give Dr Zaghloul, as representative of the respondent, 48 hours' notice of the inspection time.

In a proceeding under the ST Act, the Tribunal may make an interim order if satisfied that, by reason of the urgent circumstances of the case, it should do so. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, including the balance of convenience which favours the applicant, I am satisfied that the interim application to compel access to Lot 9 should be granted.

The interim application is allowed.
From the date of this order until 27 November 2025 pursuant to s 200(2)(m) and s 201(1) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), the respondent through its director, Dr Hassan Zaghloul, grants the applicant, The Owners of Mill Point Strata Scheme 11391, subject to orders 3, 4, 5 and 6, access to Lot 9 being Lot 9 on Strata Scheme 11391 to enable the strata company representatives to inspect the lot for the purposes of investigating:

(a) whether the water ingress to other lots within the scheme emanates from Lot 9; and

(b) whether the entry door to Lot 9 complies with fire standards.

The attendees for the inspection are not to include representatives of the Council of Owners or the Strata Manager.
The attendees for the inspection will:

(b) prepare a report and scope of remediation works, if any; and

The respondent must allow the inspection of Lot 9, referred to in these orders, on the applicant giving the respondent 48 hours' notice.
The matter is listed for a directions hearing at 12 noon on 3 October 2025 at 565 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia.

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

[5] See Bamblett and The Owners of Strathearn Strata Plan 1082 [2005] WASAT 20 where an application for interim relief under s 82(2) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) in operation prior to 1 May 2020 was dismissed because there was no urgency.

[6] See Bonnie-Vale Pty Ltd and Walter Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] WASAT 267; see also Moss and Owners of Bijou Marina Village - Strata Plan 36747 & Others [2005] WASAT 107.

[14] ST Act, s 95(1)(d) and s 95(1)(e).

[31] Exhibit 1, page 110; ts 24, 27 August 2025.

[35] Exhibit 1, page 121; ts 21, 27 August 2025.

[42] Exhibit 1, page 122; ts 72, 27 August 2025.

Administrative Tribunal Act 2004

THE OWNERS OF MILL POINT STRATA SCHEME 11391 and MAGNALAW PTY LTD [2025] WASAT 106 (3 October 2025)

Bamblett and The Owners of Strathearn Strata Plan 1082 [2005] WASAT 20

Bonnie-Vale Pty Ltd and Walter Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] WASAT 267

Moss and Owners of Bijou Marina Village - Strata Plan 36747 & Others [2005] WASAT 107

THE OWNERS OF MILL POINT STRATA SCHEME 11391 and MAGNALAW PTY LTD [2025] WASAT 106 (3 October 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (18 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (4)

THE OWNERS OF MILL POINT STRATA SCHEME 11391 and MAGNALAW PTY LTD [2025] WASAT 106 (3 October 2025)