Hojaij v French
[2025] QCATA 59
•18 June 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Hojaij v French [2025] QCATA 59
PARTIES:
ROBERTO CARLOS HOJAIJ (applicant)
v
ZIPPORAH FRENCH (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:
APL019-24
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:
Q1602-2023
MATTER TYPE:
Application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment
DELIVERED ON:
On the papers
HEARING DATE:
18 June 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member Stilgoe OAM
ORDER/S:
1. Application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
CORRECTION – where decision of appeal tribunal – where application for correction – where application made out of time – where, even if application to correct was made in time, application was misconceived.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(3)(b), s 28(b)(c), s 32, s 43, s 83, s 137, s 142(3)(a)(i), s 146(b)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 68, r 89, r 90, r 92
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
On 24 March 2025, Mr Hojaij filed an application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment to correct my decision of 10 December 2024.
In broad terms, Mr Hojaij says that the mistake that needs to be corrected was that, “the Applicant was never informed that an On-Papers Hearing would happen. The last communication the Applicant received before 10 December 2024 was the one issued by Member Lember on 24 July 2024”.
He also argued that the appeal tribunal ignored his arguments and requests a full reimbursement of the fees paid by the Applicant to the Respondent, plus the interest accrued on the amount.
The application was made out of time
An application to correct a decision must be made within 28 days of the day the application was finally dealt with.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Rules”), r 90. See also, r 92 for an application for reopening of a proceeding; r 89 for an application for renewal of a final decision; and r 68 for an application to amend a settlement order.
More than three months passed between the delivery of my decision and Mr Hojaij’s application to correct the decision.
Mr Hojaij submits that, “the only reason for the Application being lodged on 24 March was due to a delayed QCAT information was received on 12 March 2025, also offering instructions for a possible Decision’s correction”.
In Mr Hojaij’s own words, by his email dated 12 February 2025, he confirms that “on Dec 2025 [sic] I received a Decision rejecting my Appeal…”.
Mr Hojaij has not provided reasons for the delay between his receipt of my decision in December 2024 and contacting the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“QCAT”) on 12 February 2025.
Mr Hojaij’s application was made out of time, and he has given no good reason for his delay. His application should be dismissed.
For the reasons below, even if Mr Hojaij had filed his application in time, his application was misconceived and must fail.
Application to correct a decision
An application for the correction of a decision is limited to the grounds listed in s 135(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”), being:
(a)a clerical mistake; or
(b)an error arising from an accidental slip or omission; or
(c)a material miscalculation of figures or a material mistake in the description of the matter, person or thing mentioned in the decision; or
(d)a defect of form.
The only basis on which Mr Hojaij can say that my decision should be corrected is that I made a material miscalculation by not including his claim for interest.
I did not make a material miscalculation of figures. I considered the decision of the learned adjudicator and came to the same conclusion.
Mr Hojaij’s application to correct the decision is misconceived and must fail.
Was Mr Hojaij seeking another form of relief?
An application to correct a decision is made using a Form 43. That form is also used to make:
(a)an application for reopening of a proceeding;
(b)an application for renewal of a final decision; or
(c)an application to amend a settlement order.
For completeness, I will consider each of these in turn.
Reopening
The term ‘reopening ground’ is defined in Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act as:
Reopening ground, for a party to a proceeding, means –
a) the party did not appear at the hearing of the proceeding and had a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing; or
b) the party would suffer a substantial injustice if the proceeding was not reopened because significant new evidence has arisen and that evidence was not reasonably available when the proceeding was first heard and decided.
My decision was an ‘on the papers’ decision so neither party was required to attend. Mr Hojaij could have applied for an oral hearing[2] but he did not do so. He cannot rely on a non-attendance at hearing as a reopening ground.
[2]Appeal Tribunal Directions dated 24 January 2024 at [6].
Mr Hojaij has not provided any new evidence in his submissions. Indeed, he relies on the evidence before the learned adjudicator.
Mr Hojaij has no grounds for a reopening.
Renewal
A person can apply for a renewal of the decision if it is not possible for the tribunal’s decision to be complied with, or there are problems with interpreting, implementing or enforcing the tribunal’s decision.[3]
[3]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”), s 133.
Mr Hojaij has not provided any evidence that it is not possible to comply with the tribunal’s final decision, or that there are any problems with interpreting, implementing or enforcing the tribunal’s final decision.
Amendment
Parties to a proceeding may apply to the tribunal for an amendment of a final order if the order does not reflect the intention of the parties in the settlement.[4]
[4]QCAT Act, s 88(2).
Mr Hojaij argues the reverse: that the decision gives effect to a settlement agreement which, he says, was not in fact an agreement. I dealt with that submission in my reasons for decision.
Is this Application for leave to Appeal?
Mr Hojaij’s submissions raise issues that are more in the nature of an application for leave to appeal.
It is clear that that Mr Hojaij is unhappy with the both the learned adjudicator’s decision and my decision on appeal, but this application is not the appropriate way to challenge them.
If Mr Hojaij is intending an appeal then, self-evidently, I have no power to hear an appeal against my own decision. The QCAT Act is clear that any appeal from my decision must be to the Court of Appeal.[5]
[5]QCAT Act, s 150.
This file is beset by a series of communication failures on the part of QCAT. While I understand Mr Hojaij’s frustration and have sympathy for his disappointment with QCAT’s procedural non-performance, that is not a sufficient reason to overturn my decision, or the decision of the learned adjudicator.
Orders
1. Application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment dismissed.
0
0
1