❓ Hon. Anthony Fels questions why the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection hasn't enforced a Retirement Villages Disputes Tribunal order against Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, despite a District Court dismissal of their appeal. Hon. Kate Doust provides a detailed answer, incorporated into Hansard, explaining the court's interpretation.
AnsweredQoN 215Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
TIMBERSIDE VILLAS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD - TRIBUNAL ORDER
On 15 December 2005, the District Court of Western Australia dismissed an appeal by Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd against Mrs Norma Parker. This appeal was made against an order of the Retirement Villages Disputes Tribunal on 31 August 2004, No RT/2004-000002. Given that the decision by the District Court is binding, why has the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection refused to enforce the tribunal’s order? Hon KATE DOUST
On 15 December 2005, the District Court of Western Australia dismissed an appeal by Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd against Mrs Norma Parker. This appeal was made against an order of the Retirement Villages Disputes Tribunal on 31 August 2004, No RT/2004-000002. Given that the decision by the District Court is binding, why has the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection refused to enforce the tribunal’s order? Hon KATE DOUST
AnswerView source ↗
The answer is quite detailed. I seek leave to table the document and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1478.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: The answer is quite detailed. I seek leave to table the document and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1478.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The answer is quite detailed. I seek leave to table the document and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1478.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
Leave granted. [See paper 1478.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
[See paper 1478.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
“2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
“ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
“. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: The answer is quite detailed. I seek leave to table the document and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1478.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The answer is quite detailed. I seek leave to table the document and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1478.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
Leave granted. [See paper 1478.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
[See paper 1478.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The relevant orders made by the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal on 31 August 2004 were: “2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
“2. In relation to requested orders 2,3 and 4: The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The terms of the Residency Deed entered into on 16 April 1999 between Fabray Pty Ltd, as the Manager, Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd, as the Developer, and Norma Parker, as the Resident, in respect of Lot 32 on Strata Plan 27426, within the Timberside Retirement Village (“the Village”), are to continue in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions referred to in a Deed dated 26 March 2003 or in accordance with a resolution of a meeting of Residents of the Village held on 28 January 2004 and the management and conduct of the Village and its funds are to be deemed to have continued without taking into account any such deletions, alterations or additions. In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
In the District Court Proceedings Timberside Villas Management Pty Ltd v Parker [2005] WADC 246, Her Honour, Judge Chrisford, after considering the interaction of sections 19 and 56 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, considered the findings of the then Referee of the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal. Her Honour disagreed with some of the reasoning of the Referee, stating that: “ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
“ This Court is of the view that agreements to vary or cancel can be made by a resident and a party to a service contract either on a one to one basis or utilising some other mechanism for agreement. However, an individual or party retains a right to have the Tribunal consider proposals or actual disputes where that individual does not agree. To this extent the Referee was in error.” Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
Notwithstanding the Referee’s error in reasoning, Her Honour agreed with the Referee’s conclusion, stating: “. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
“. . . However, the effective outcome of the Referee’s decision is that the service contract insofar as it relates to Mrs Parker is to be specifically performed in its terms as at the date of its execution. In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
In relation to ground 4 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding to make the order it did. Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
Consequently, the orders of the then Referee do not require enforcement by DOCEP as the effect of the orders is that the terms of the original residency agreement, as it applies to Mrs Parker “ continues in full force and effect without any of the proposed deletions, alterations or additions . . . “ The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
The District Court decision clarifies that where a member disagrees with amendments affecting their contract, they have a right to take that dispute to the State Administrative Tribunal, rather than being automatically bound by the will of the majority of residents.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.