Walker v Ison (No 2)

[2017] QCATA 83

CITATION: Walker v Ison (No 2) [2017] QCATA 83

PARTIES:	Peter Walker Lisa Walker (Applicants/Appellants)
v
Christopher Ison (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:		APL284-16

MATTER TYPE: Application

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Carmody

DELIVERED ON: 6 July 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT:

1.    The application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment filed 28 June 2017 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – reopening – whether the matter should be corrected due to the applicants listing a mistake on the application for leave to appeal or appeal  – where the tribunal made no mistake  – where the applicant failed to bring the error to the tribunal’s attention until after the decision was delivered  – where the application for correction is refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 32, 135

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers without the attendance of either party in accordance with s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 21 May 2017, the appeal tribunal granted leave for the applicant, Peter and Lisa Walker, to appeal. The tribunal decision of 25 November 2016 was set aside and the respondent, Christopher Ison, was ordered to pay the applicants $3,659.91 ($3,070.00 plus $589.91) in compensation and $315.70 filing costs within 30 days.

2. On 28 June 2017 the successful litigants, Peter and Lisa Walker, filed an application "to correctly name the respondents of the appeal as Christopher and Melany Ison".

3. The parties are seeking the tribunal correct a mistake under s 135 of the QCAT Act where "due to an accidental oversight or misplaced form, the additional sheet required to name the second respondent of Melany Ison was omitted from the Application for leave to appeal or appeal so that only one person – Christopher Ison – was named as the respondent in the appeal tribunal decision".

4. The appeal tribunal's discretionary power to correct mistakes, commonly called the 'slip rule', will only be exercised in circumstances where the decision contains a clerical mistake, an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, a substantive miscalculation of figures or mistake in the description of something mentioned in the decision or a defect of form.

5. It is difficult to understand the mistake this tribunal is alleged to have made. I do not accept the inference that it is the tribunal's responsibility to correctly name the respondents of the appeal in the application for leave to appeal. The tribunal had no way of knowing this was an error, nor was it brought to the tribunal's attention by the applicant during the matter.

6. Simply relying on material where the respondents are jointly named in past proceedings to be sufficient circumstances to have a decision corrected is, in my opinion, unreasonable and cannot be viewed as a mistake where the 'slip rule' should be exercised by the Tribunal.

7. Thus, the application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment filed 28 June 2017 is refused.