Ministerial Ex Gratia Compensation Request Lodged – 20 February 2026
Today I formally submitted my Ministerial Ex Gratia Compensation Request to the Minister for Lands / Minister for Planning regarding the long‑standing administrative omission by Landgate and the consequential planning harm arising from the City of Swan’s 2015 approval affecting Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga.
The submission includes:
- Ministerial Ex Gratia Compensation Submission
- Chronology of Relevant Events
- Memorandum & Evidence Bundle
- Landgate Correspondence (2020)
This request is made under the Executive Government’s discretionary authority to grant ex gratia compensation, supported by the Financial Management Act 2006 (WA) and the WA Government Ex Gratia Guidelines, which allow compensation where administrative error has caused loss and no legal remedy exists.
I now await the Minister’s written response.
部长酌情补偿申请已提交 – 2026年2月20日
我已正式向土地部长 / 规划部长提交了酌情补偿申请，内容涉及 Landgate 多年来的行政疏漏，以及 Swan 市议会在 2015 年所作出的规划批准对 Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga 造成的后续损害。
提交材料包括：
- 部长酌情补偿申请书
- 相关事件时间表
- 备忘录与证据文件
- Landgate 2020 年往来信件
本申请依据州政府的行政酌情权提出，并受《2006 年财务管理法（WA）》及西澳酌情补偿指引支持，用于处理因行政错误造成损失且无法律途径可补救的情况。
现正等待部长的书面回复。
Permohonan Pampasan Ex Gratia Menteri Telah Dihantar – 20 Februari 2026
Saya telah menghantar Permohonan Pampasan Ex Gratia kepada Menteri Tanah / Menteri Perancangan berhubung kesilapan pentadbiran Landgate dan kesan perancangan susulan daripada kelulusan tahun 2015 oleh City of Swan yang menjejaskan Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga.
Dokumen yang disertakan:
- Penyerahan Permohonan Pampasan Ex Gratia
- Kronologi Peristiwa Berkaitan
- Memorandum & Set Bukti
- Surat‑menyurat Landgate (2020)
Permohonan ini dibuat di bawah kuasa budi bicara Kerajaan Negeri, disokong oleh Financial Management Act 2006 (WA) dan Garis Panduan Pampasan Ex Gratia WA, yang membenarkan pampasan apabila kesilapan pentadbiran menyebabkan kerugian dan tiada remedi undang‑undang tersedia.
Saya kini menunggu maklum balas bertulis daripada Menteri.
The Supreme Court’s *Gething* decision makes an important point for the public. In paragraph 3, the Court confirms that the former statutory right to compensation under s 197 of the *Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)* was repealed in 1996. The old Assurance Fund no longer exists, and the Court cannot award compensation under a repealed provision. The Court also notes that the 1996 amendments replaced the Assurance Fund with only a *limited* right to compensation from the State.
ReplyDeleteThis means that people affected by land‑title errors or administrative omissions no longer have access to the former statutory remedy. When the statutory pathway has been abolished and the replacement scheme does not cover the loss, the only remaining avenue is **Ministerial ex gratia compensation**. The *Gething* decision therefore confirms that the correct and lawful pathway is to seek compensation directly from the Minister.
## **简体中文（Chinese – Simplified）**
**评论：**
最高法院在 *Gething* 案中的判决向公众明确了一点。在第 3 段中，法院确认《1893 年土地转让法》（WA）第 197 条所规定的原有赔偿权在 1996 年已被废除。旧的保证基金（Assurance Fund）已不存在，法院也无法依据已废除的条文给予赔偿。法院同时指出，1996 年的修正案以对州政府的“有限赔偿权”取代了原有的保证基金制度。
这意味着，受到土地登记错误或行政疏忽影响的人，已无法依靠原有的法定途径获得赔偿。当法定途径被废除，而替代机制又无法涵盖相关损失时，唯一剩下的途径就是向部长申请 **酌情赔偿（Ministerial ex gratia compensation）**。因此，*Gething* 判决确认了：正确且合法的途径是直接向部长寻求赔偿。
## **Bahasa Melayu**
**ULASAN:**
Keputusan Mahkamah Agung dalam kes *Gething* menjelaskan satu perkara penting kepada orang ramai. Dalam perenggan 3, mahkamah mengesahkan bahawa hak pampasan statutori di bawah s 197 *Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)* telah dimansuhkan pada tahun 1996. Dana Jaminan (Assurance Fund) lama tidak lagi wujud, dan mahkamah tidak boleh memberikan pampasan berdasarkan peruntukan yang telah dimansuhkan. Mahkamah juga menyatakan bahawa pindaan tahun 1996 menggantikan Dana Jaminan dengan hak pampasan yang *terhad* daripada kerajaan negeri.
Ini bermaksud bahawa individu yang terjejas oleh kesilapan pendaftaran tanah atau kecuaian pentadbiran tidak lagi mempunyai akses kepada saluran statutori lama. Apabila saluran statutori telah dimansuhkan dan skim gantian tidak meliputi kerugian tersebut, satu‑satunya jalan yang sah ialah memohon **pampasan ex gratia daripada Menteri**. Oleh itu, keputusan *Gething* mengesahkan bahawa laluan yang betul dan sah adalah memohon pampasan terus kepada Menteri.
EDITOR’S NOTE:
ReplyDeleteThe Gething decision highlights a structural gap created when Parliament repealed the former Assurance Fund compensation pathway. With the statutory remedy abolished and the replacement scheme limited, affected individuals have no judicial avenue. This is precisely the type of situation for which Ministerial ex gratia compensation exists.
**COMMENT:**
ReplyDeleteThe *Gething* decision is not just a technical ruling. It confirms that Western Australians can no longer rely on the former Assurance Fund system for compensation when government errors occur in land titles or planning processes. Because Parliament repealed s 197 in 1996, the courts no longer have power to award compensation under that pathway. The only remaining mechanism is **Ministerial ex gratia compensation**, which exists precisely to address losses caused by administrative omissions where no statutory remedy remains. This is the correct and lawful pathway for affected individuals.