Costs in the SAT-Zorzi v Town of Cambridge [2025] WASAR 77 (S)

A recent State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) decision is a timely reminder that a successful outcome on review of a decision relating to a development application does not open the door to compensation‑style cost claims.

In Zorzi v Town of Cambridge [2025] WASAT 77 (S), the applicant, Ms Zorzi, was successful in overturning a written direction issued by the Town of Cambridge (Town) preventing the removal of a large tuart tree on her property in connection with the implementation of a development approval granted by the Town in respect of the property.  Ms Zorzi then sought to claim over $250,000 in costs from the Town in connection with the matter comprising costs associated with the SAT hearing, consultant fees, construction delays, interest, and project management expenses.

Ms Zorzi’s claim for costs was only partly successful, with the SAT ordering the Town to pay her $21,428 for the following reasons.

a. Any costs order in the SAT must be made in accordance with the statutory power to award costs that is contained in section 87 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act).

1. By section 87(1) of the SAT Act, the SAT is generally a “no-costs” jurisdiction, meaning that unless otherwise specified, each party to a SAT proceeding bears its own costs.
2. Section 87(2) of the SAT Act provides that the SAT may make an order for the payment by a party of all or any of the costs of another party.
3. Section 87(3) of the SAT Act provides that a costs order made by the SAT may include a payment of an amount to compensate the other party for any expense, loss, inconvenience or embarrassment resulting from the SAT proceeding.
4. Section 87(4) of the SAT Act provides that in deciding whether to make a costs order, the SAT is to have regard to whether the claimant genuinely attempted to enable and assist the acquiring authority to make a decision on the merits of the application, and whether the decision-making body genuinely attempted to make a decision on the merits.

b. In basic terms, section 87 of the SAT Act provides that in deciding whether to make a costs order, the SAT needs to determine whether in the particular circumstances of the case, it is fair and reasonable that a party should be reimbursed for its costs incurred – being successful is not enough.

c. In this case, the SAT found that the Town’s decision to issue the written direction was unreasonable, because it focused on a later‑adopted policy instead of properly construing the existing development approval.  That, in the SAT’s view, justified a costs order, notwithstanding the Town’s argument that it acted in the public interest.

d. The most important lesson arising from the SAT’s decision is that the SAT cannot award damages in disguise.  Claims for construction and labour costs, design changes, project delays, interest and “opportunity cost” were all rejected.  Section 87(3) of the SAT Act allows recovery only for costs arising from the SAT proceeding or the decision under review, not commercial losses caused by delay.  Recoverable costs were limited to reasonable legal fees, assessed strictly under the Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination 2024 (not indemnity‑style), and limited town planning expert fees directly related to the application for review.  In that regard, the SAT took a robust, proportional approach, cutting back hours and excluding duplicated advocacy.

Lavan comment

For applicants, the SAT’s decision in this case cautions against overreaching on costs, even where it is fair and reasonable that a party should be reimbursed for its costs incurred. Even where a decision made by a decision making body is overturned, the SAT will not compensate for development delay or financial loss. The SAT will not compensate for development delay or financial loss, even where a decision made by a decision-making body is overturned.

For local governments, the decision confirms that good‑faith enforcement is still encouraged but failing to properly construe an approval can expose it to adverse costs claims.

If you have any questions about the article or any queries about enforcement related costs please contact the Lavan Planning, Environment and Land Compensation team.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal advice in relation to any particular matter you may have before relying or acting on this information. The Lavan team are here to assist.