• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The original order was made on 22 July 2009. As paragraph [1] records, the Tribunal had directed the grant of a permit in Permit Application No. D/82/2008 under the Darebin Planning Scheme. The correction reasons followed a letter dated 30 July 2009 from the Responsible Authority's Senior Urban Planner. The letter drew attention to what the planner suggested was a clerical error and submitted that the order should be corrected ([2]).

The Member relied on s 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. The judgment describes that provision as allowing correction of orders where, among other things, there has been a clerical mistake ([3]). The Member was satisfied a clerical mistake had occurred and authorised correction ([4]).

The order dated 10 August 2009 specified three amendments:

1. In condition 1(d), the reference to condition 6 was changed to condition 5.
2. Condition 1(e) was deleted, and the former conditions 1(f) and 1(g) were renumbered as 1(e) and 1(f).
3. The word “tank” was added after “rainwater” in the resulting condition 1(f).

The Member also stated that “[t]he deletion of the notations on permit was deliberate” ([5]). That note is important because it separates an intentional feature of the earlier order from the clerical corrections being made. The reasons do not reproduce the permit conditions in full or identify the notations themselves.

Why the court decided this way

The decision turns on the Member's satisfaction that a clerical mistake had occurred. The source gives a short account rather than a detailed analysis of how a clerical mistake is identified. It states the statutory basis in general terms and records the Member's conclusion ([3]–[4]). It does not set out the full text of s 119, discuss other authorities, or describe a multi-part legal test.

The sequence is straightforward. First, the Responsible Authority's Senior Urban Planner raised a proposed correction by letter ([2]). Second, the Member considered the correction within the statutory power described in paragraph [3]. Third, she stated that she was satisfied a clerical mistake had occurred ([4]). The order then identified exactly what was to change.

The express reference to the deliberate deletion of permit notations ([5]) places a limit on how the correction should be understood. On the face of the reasons, the Member did not treat every feature that might have been questioned in the earlier order as clerical. She recorded that the notations had been deleted deliberately, while authorising the specific changes set out in the correction order. The decision therefore supports a narrow reading: the order was corrected in the stated respects, and the deliberate deletion was not itself undone.

The reasons do not explain the origin of each typographical or cross-reference error. Nor do they say whether the responsible authority's letter identified all three changes individually. It is therefore safest to describe the corrections by reference to the operative order, rather than infer more about how the errors arose.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment supplies only a limited account of the law. It states that s 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 provided for the correction of orders where, among other things, there had been a clerical mistake ([3]). It then applies that stated power to the Tribunal's own earlier order ([4]).

Before the correction, the 22 July order contained the condition reference and wording later changed by the 10 August order. After correction, condition 1(d) referred to condition 5 rather than condition 6; the condition previously numbered 1(e) was deleted, with the following conditions renumbered; and “tank” appeared after “rainwater” in condition 1(f). The Member expressly preserved the significance of the earlier deletion of notations by recording that it was deliberate ([5]).

This is a description of the state of this particular order before and after correction. It should not be read as a comprehensive account of the statutory power, its boundaries, or its application in other proceedings. The judgment does not address legislative history, subsequent amendments to s 119, or whether the same reasoning applies to other types of tribunal orders. It also does not contain a discussion of appellate or other case law from which a broader doctrinal development could be traced.

Key passages with plain-English translation

Paragraph [3] says that s 119 provides for correction of orders where there has been a clerical mistake. In plain English, the Member identified a statutory mechanism for correcting an order when an error is clerical. The judgment does not reproduce the full section or explain every circumstance in which it may be used.

Paragraph [4] states: “I am satisfied that this has occurred here and find it appropriate to authorise a correction of the order.” In plain English, the Member accepted that the problem identified was a clerical mistake and authorised corrections. The passage does not give a longer explanation of the evidence or reasoning behind that satisfaction.

The operative order provides the exact corrections. Changing condition 1(d)'s cross-reference from condition 6 to condition 5 adjusts the reference used in that condition. Deleting condition 1(e) and renumbering the following conditions changes the structure and numbering of the permit conditions. Adding “tank” after “rainwater” changes the wording in condition 1(f). The source does not set out the complete conditions, so their wider practical meaning cannot be assessed from this judgment alone.

Paragraph [5] states: “The deletion of the notations on permit was deliberate.” In plain English, the Member recorded that this deletion was intentional. The statement matters because it cautions against treating the correction order as a general reconsideration or reversal of all features of the earlier permit order.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The judgment is relevant to a narrow type of situation: an existing VCAT order is said to contain a clerical mistake, and a party or responsible authority draws the issue to the Tribunal's attention. The decision shows that the Member considered s 119 after receiving a letter from the Responsible Authority's Senior Urban Planner, and that the Tribunal made specific corrections after being satisfied that a clerical mistake had occurred ([2]–[4]).

The particular corrections here involved condition numbering, a cross-reference between permit conditions, and the insertion of a word into a condition. Those details describe what occurred in this proceeding; they do not establish that every numbering, cross-reference, or drafting problem must be treated as clerical. The judgment does not define the boundary between a clerical correction and a substantive change.

The decision also highlights a potentially important distinction within the same order. A feature that might appear alongside a correction request may have been intentional. Here, the Member expressly said that deletion of the permit notations was deliberate ([5]). The judgment therefore does not support assuming that all challenged content was an accidental error simply because the Tribunal corrected other parts of the order.

For professionals examining another matter, the source-grounded questions raised by this decision include: what exact wording or reference in the order is said to be mistaken; what correction was requested; whether the Tribunal has recorded that the alleged mistake was clerical; and whether any other change was deliberate. The case itself does not answer how the statutory power would apply to materially different facts.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later cases and no citations to precedent. It records no appeal, review, affirmance, reversal, or subsequent judicial treatment. Accordingly, no conclusion about how later courts or tribunals have treated Palero Design Drafting can be drawn from this source.

The decision's own reasoning is short and tied to the correction of one identified VCAT order. It would be inaccurate, on the material provided, to attribute a broader line of precedent to it or to state that a later court adopted, narrowed, or rejected its approach. Any account of later treatment would require sources beyond this judgment.

Still-open questions

Several matters are not resolved in the reasons. The judgment does not reproduce the complete text of s 119, explain the full legal meaning of “clerical mistake”, or state a detailed test for distinguishing a clerical error from a substantive change. It records the Member's satisfaction and the corrections made, but not a developed analysis of the line between those categories.

The reasons also do not reproduce the conditions before or after correction in full. As a result, the practical effect of the changed reference and inserted word cannot be assessed beyond the changes expressly listed in the order. The underlying planning merits and the reasoning for directing the grant of the permit are not addressed in these correction reasons.

Finally, the document does not identify the permit notations that were deliberately deleted or explain their significance. The Member's statement establishes that the deletion was intentional, but the judgment does not describe the notations or their consequences. Those matters remain outside the reasons provided.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.