3 Section 119 reads as follows:

(1) The Tribunal may correct an order made by it if the order contains--

(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 any person, thing or matter referred to in the order; or

(b) on the application of a party in accordance with the rules."

4 The parties were advised by letter dated 30 October 2003 that the Tribunal would not deal with the application for correction of the order without an opportunity being given to the other party to comment, as the matter will most likely require a hearing.

5 Messrs Baker and McKenzie, Solicitors for the applicant, responded by letter dated 5 November 2003 stating that:

"We do not agree that Section 119 is applicable to the circumstances alleged in the Application by Maddocks dated 24 October 2003, and request the Tribunal to dismiss the Application.

If contrary to our view of the Application, the Tribunal is minded to consider the request from Maddocks we request the opportunity to be heard to oppose the Application."

6 The Tribunal then requested the parties to advise if they sought a hearing of the Section 119 application or whether the Tribunal should decide the application on the papers. By letter dated 24 November 2003 Maddocks requested the Tribunal decide the application on the papers. No response was received from Baker & McKenzie.

7 We then considered the application and at our request, Registry by letter dated 2 December 2003 advised the parties:

"We refer to your letters of 24 October 2003 (and the enclosed application under S119) and 24 November 2003, and to Baker & McKenzie's letter of 5 November 2003.

The Members have requested that you be advised that they do not consider the Order and Reasons contain any clerical mistake, error arising from an accidental slip or omission, or a material miscalculation of figures or a material mistake in terms of S 119(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and they decline to make any correction to their order and reasons under that provision."

8 By letter dated 8 December 2003 Maddocks wrote to the Tribunal requesting reasons for the decision to make a correction pursuant to Section 117 of the Act.

9 The ground relied upon in the Section 119 application is that paragraphs 23 and 24 of the order contain a mistake error or defect in form of the kind described in either one or more of the sub-paragraphs of sub-section (1) of Section 119 of the Act.

10 We have considered the submissions and are not of the view that the reasons to the order contain a

c) a material miscalculation of figures or a material mistake in the description of any person, thing or matter referred to in the order, or

11 Maddocks' submission, which we do not propose to set out as they are known to both parties and are on the Tribunal file, in essence rely on an assumption that the calculations referred to in paragraphs 23 and 24 should automatically and mathematically translate to the reduction of the special charge.

12 However, as the text of the order and reasons states, the calculations were not the only factors considered by us in exercising our discretion reduce the amount of the charge. This is indicated by the words in paragraph 24 of the reasons "The Tribunal with the above information and background apportionment experience believes..." by which we refer to all the matters set out in the reasons, in particular, those set out in paragraph 22, as well as the statements in paragraph 24 that the estimates of the tip and asset lives were "somewhat arbitrary", and future development costs of the applicants' site being "difficult and unpredictable".

13 If the Tribunal were to make a correction to its reasons it would only be to more explicitly state that this was the case.

14 We give these reasons as a matter of courtesy, but consider we are not obliged to do so under Section 117 of the Act. We have not made an order, but in correspondence merely declined to make a correction. Also, if that is regarded as an order, it is more of the character of an interim order.

15 It also appears the applicants' course of action is intended appears to seek that we reconsider the decision. We have no power to do so. Any remedies of the Respondent lie elsewhere.