(See https://givemesomeenglish.com/act-in-haste-repent-at-leisure-vs-haste-makes-waste/ though the proper quote appears to be ‘Marry in haste, repent at leisure’ (https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/married-in-haste.html) but that would not be relevant to this post).

Mr Jeater may have ‘acted in haste’ when, at a meeting of the Swan Unit Western Australia State Emergency Service Incorporated he said ‘[t]herefore I rescind my membership from the Swan State Emergency Service.  Thank you very much for your time’.  This was taken as an effective resignation, a move Mr Jeater repented and sought to have overturned in Jeater v Swan Unit Western Australia State Emergency Service Incorporated [2026] WASAT 3.

The Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998 (WA) s 18C(1) says:

 The FES Commissioner may, by notice in the Gazette , approve as an SES Unit any group of persons, however constituted and whether incorporated or not, that the FES Commissioner considers to be appropriate for approval as an SES Unit.

The Swan Unit is presumably approved and as the name suggests it is an incorporated entity, that is it has a separate legal existence, it can own property and sue and be sued in its own name.  The Swan Unit is incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 2015 (WA).  An incorporated association must have rules that detail, inter alia ‘The qualifications (if any) for membership of the incorporated association and provision for when membership commences and when it ceases’ (Associations Incorporation Act 2015 (WA) sch 1, cl [3]).

We are told (Jeater v Swan Unit Western Australia State Emergency Service Incorporated [2026] WASAT 3, [1] and [2]) that:

Daniel John Jeater (Mr Jeater or the applicant) has given many years of voluntary service to the people of the Swan Land District as a member of the Swan Unit Western Australia State Emergency Service Incorporated (the Association or the respondent).  In late 2024 and early 2025, however, he experienced some significant health and personal issues and on a small number of occasions during that time engaged in behaviour toward some other volunteers in a way that he now, quite properly, regrets.

In early 2025, as a result of his behaviour, the management committee of the Association (Committee) commenced a disciplinary process against him and at the conclusion of that process, in reliance on what they understood to be the rules of the Association, imposed some temporary sanctions on him.

Mr Jeater asked the Department of Fire and Emergency Services to review the decision which advised that the sanctions imposed were not permitted by the unit’s rules and further, the unit executive had been relying on a superseded set of rules ([3]). The Committee rescinded its decision and recommenced disciplinary proceedings under the current rules. The current rules did not allow any sort of graduated penalty for misbehaviour – ‘they provide for but one sanction, which is expulsion from the Association’ ([4]). 

A meeting was held to consider Mr Jeater’s ongoing membership.  Due to ‘a poorly drafted rule’ ([6]) Mr Jeater believed he could bring a nominee with him to mediate between him and the Association. He was advised that his nominated mediator could act as his support person but could not act as a mediator ([5]).  At [7] we’re told:

At the 4 August 2025 meeting, after speaking to the Committee for about one hour, Mr Jeater said words which the Committee understood as him giving notice of his resignation from the Association and he then walked out of the meeting.

A member of the committee emails Mr Jeater with a copy to his nominated mediator/support person, Ms Welch, asking him to confirm whether he had indeed resigned at the meeting. Ms Welch replied with a copy to Mr Jeater ([8]) which said ‘In answer to your question, to clarify, Mr Jeater rescinded his membership of the Swan State Emergency Service on Monday evening during the meeting’ ([16](6)).  The Committee stopped any further consideration of the disciplinary matter and removed Mr Jeater from the list of members ([8]).

Mr Jeater sought to have that decision overturned arguing that a resignation had to be in writing and that the Committee should have recognised:

  1. he was clearly in such a disturbed emotional state that his words could not be understood by the Committee as manifesting a decision to cease being a member of the Association; and
  2. the Committee engaged in coercive conduct such that his purported resignation was not voluntary and is a nullity.

Finally he argued that the resignation was only effective once accepted by the Committee and this had not been done ([17]).

The decision of the State Administrative Tribunal based on an interpretation of the rules. Rule 15 said that a person’s membership ceased if, amongst other things, ‘the member resigns from membership of Swan SES by giving notice thereof’ ([23]).  The clause did not say the notice had to be in writing, but other provisions in the rules about giving notices did provide that those other notices had to be written or in writing ([26]-[31]). None of these provisions amended the common law rule that a member could resign by any conduct that evidenced an intention to resign ([24] and [33]).  The Tribunal said (at [33]):

The Tribunal finds that on proper construction, when read both in the context of the Rules as a whole and in light of the common law principles set out above, that rule 15 does permit a member to resign from the Association by giving notice either orally or in writing to the Association’s Administration Officer.

The Tribunal also found (at [37]) that the rule provided that:

… the resignation of a member is effective immediately upon the giving of the notice of resignation by the member to the Administration Officer, which in the case of words of resignation spoken by a member to the Administration Officer, is immediately after those words are spoken. 

The rules did not require a formal resolution of the Committee to accept the resignation. 

As for coercive conduct (at [43]):

As best as the Tribunal understands the submissions made by Mr Jeater, he particularises the alleged coercive conduct of the Association to be that by pursuing a second disciplinary process based on the same grounds as the first, the Committee has prolonged his uncertainty and stress, exacerbated his ‘psychosocial hazards’, and that as a consequence he had no other choice than to resign from the Association.

Mr Jeater relied on some employment law precedents which indicate that coercive conduct may make a resignation a nullity. To add my own commentary here I think what he was pointing to was cases where even though people have resigned they have later argued they were in effect dismissed when the employer and the circumstances of their employment gave them no choice but to resign. Such an argument is necessary if a person then seeks a remedy for unfair dismissal or the like in the face of an apparent resignation.  The Tribunal said (at 45):

… the Tribunal finds that these employment decisions are not based on the law of commercial contracts but rather on an International Labour Organisation Convention (which has been incorporated into employment legislation in Australia), which provides an employee with a right to seek a remedy in circumstances where the employee did not voluntarily leave the employment.  Consequently, these employment decisions cannot be applied to the issues in these proceedings.

That is volunteers are not employees, so employment law is not relevant.  What was relevant here were the rules of the Association.  In any event the Tribunal found there had been no improper or coercive conduct.   There was an argument about Mr Jeater’s emotional state at the time he said the words. The matter had been recorded and the Tribunal had the benefit of listening to that recording. They said (at [54]-[55]):

… the Tribunal has carefully listened to the recordings of this meeting and finds:

(1)          The Committee acted professionally during the meeting and displayed appropriate courtesy to Mr Jeater;

(2)          The Committee provided Mr Jeater every opportunity to explain his position to them (which he did for about an hour) and it also gave him opportunities to take breaks during the meeting;

(3)          Mr Jeater had Ms Welch to support him throughout the meeting;

(4)          The Committee did not prompt Mr Jeater to resign; and

(5)          The recordings of the meeting (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3) do not support Mr Jeater’s contention that when he spoke the words that he was ‘choking up’ and ‘in tears’, although his voice did tremble thereby showing that this was indeed an emotionally significant time for him.

After considering the recording, the documents within the [hearing book], the evidence of Mr Jeater and the submissions of each of the parties the Tribunal finds:

(1)          Mr Jeater’s words were spoken voluntarily and were unambiguous, that is, they clearly manifested his intention to immediately resign from the Association; and

(2)          While Mr Jeater did become emotionally affected towards the end of the meeting he was not overcome to the point where the words he spoke could not be understood as manifesting his decision to resign.

The Tribunal found (at [59]) that Mr Jeater had indeed resigned from the Swan Unit and was no longer a member of that unit.  The Tribunal did say (at [57]-[58]):

While it is clear these matters have caused considerable distress to both Mr Jeater and to the members of the Committee, who are all volunteers providing valuable services to their community, these reasons should not be seen as a criticism of either Mr Jeater, the members of the Committee or the staff of DFES who have been involved in the matter.

This is because it is clear to the Tribunal that all involved have done their best to discharge their duties and to selflessly serve their communities and they are to be commended for doing this.  If there is any lesson to be learned from this matter, it is that the Rules should be reviewed to ensure that they better meet the needs of the Association and its members.

Discussion

This is indeed a sad case.  Everyone was trying to do their best.  At first instance the Committee sought only to apply temporary sanctions. If Mr Jeater had accepted that then the sanctions may have been applied and everyone would have, we assume, got on with being the SES even though the Committee had no power to impose those sanctions. It cannot be a criticism of Mr Jeater, however, that he challenged a decision that the Committee had no power to make though it may then have come as a surprise to him that the only power they had was to dismiss him.  Having gone from the frying pan and into the fire he then was ‘hoist with his own petard’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard) when he said  ‘I rescind my membership from the Swan State Emergency Service.  Thank you very much for your time’.   This was, according to the Tribunal (at [51]):

…intended to convey not the strict meaning of the word [rescind], but the related meaning which is that he is giving up or yielding his membership in the Association.  That is, that he is resigning from the Association. 

Again it was Mr Jeater’s own actions that were the source of his undoing. But as noted at [57]-[58] (quoted above) everyone was trying to do their best dealing with rules not best suited to the needs of the Association.  It is perhaps part of the problem of having a group of volunteers – who probably want to spend their time responding to emergencies rather than understanding the ins and outs of the rules and the application of the Associations Incorporation Act – left to manage complex issues of volunteer management and discipline.   The Fire and Emergency Services Act provides for separately incorporated units but it adds a level of complexity to have separate legal entitles operating on behalf of the state agency. This can be compared to other states where the emergency service is part of government and the units, part of the service, are also part of the government and it would at the end of the day, be the government agency that was ultimately responsible for the discipline of members probably in accordance with legislation drafted by professionals with experience in the field.

Conclusion

Mr Jeater acted, perhaps in haste, when he first challenged the decision fo the committee and then later when he offered his resignation. He has plenty of time to repent now that he is no longer a member of the SES in WA.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.