Position Property Real Estate v Buchanan

[2015] QCAT 406

CITATION: Position Property Real Estate v Buchanan [2015] QCAT 406

PARTIES:	Position Property Real Estate (Applicant)
v
Clinton Kane Buchanan (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDT1610-15

MATTER TYPE: Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE: 11 September 2015

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Adjudicator Anna Walsh

DELIVERED ON: 11 September 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    Application to Correct a Decision Refused

CATCHWORDS: Residential tenancy matters – correction - section 135 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This application was heard and determined by the Tribunal on 27 July 2015.

2. The orders made were that the Respondent pay to the Applicant of $5,076.70 representing $4,971.70 plus $150.00 filing fee.

3. The Applicant now applies to correct the amount to be paid by the Respondent to $6,796.72.

4. The reason given for the request for amendment is that the original figures were submitted to QCAT the bond payment had wrongly been deducted by the Applicant twice.

5. In the application for Minor Civil Dispute filed on 23 June 2015 the Applicant stated that the total amount of the claim including the filing fee was $5,252.70.

6. The application was served on the Respondent at 13 Meridian Court Tanah Merah Qld 4128.

7. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing on 27 July 2015.

8. Section 135 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) permits the Tribunal to correct a decision made if the decision contains-

   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 a matter, person or thing mentioned in the decision; or

   d)    a defect in form.

9. The reference to material miscalculation of figures is in reference to a material miscalculation by the tribunal. This has not occurred in this case.

10. The Respondent seeks to unilaterally increase the amount claimed in its application post determination and without notice to the Respondent.

11. This cannot be done. The application for correction is refused.