• 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 document describes a contradiction in the Tribunal’s earlier conclusion. As recorded in the reasons, the conclusion stated: “Having regard to the above reasons a permit is granted and I will direct that no permit issue in relation to Knox permit application P2008/6732.” Those two propositions are inconsistent: one says a permit is granted, while the other says no permit should issue.

Knox City Council drew the problem to the Tribunal’s attention by letter dated 23 September. The reasons say Council described the issue as a suggested clerical error causing a “contraction”, which the Member said she assumed meant a contradiction. Council submitted that the order should be corrected.

The Tribunal accepted that an accidental slip had occurred. The correcting order changed the conclusion to: “Having regard to the above reasons no permit is granted and I will direct that no permit issue in relation to Knox permit application P2008/6732.” The correction therefore removed the words “a permit is granted” and left the outcome as refusal of the permit application.

There is a date inconsistency in the document. The correcting order says that the Tribunal’s order in the proceedings was dated 28 November 2008. The reasons, however, state that by order dated 4 September 2009 the Tribunal ordered that no permit was granted. The case heading also identifies 4 September 2009 as the date of the original order, and 6 October 2009 as the date of the correcting order. The source does not resolve the discrepancy, so it should not be silently reconciled.

The matter is presented as a correction of the wording of an order. It does not reproduce the original planning reasons or assess the merits of the application under the Knox Planning Scheme.

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal’s stated legal basis was section 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. The Member described that provision as allowing correction of orders where, among other things, there has been an accidental slip.

The reasoning is short and direct. First, Council identified the inconsistency between the two parts of the conclusion. Second, the Member was satisfied that the inconsistency resulted from an accidental slip. Third, the Member found it appropriate to authorise correction. The corrected wording then made the operative outcome internally consistent: no permit was granted, and no permit was to issue.

The decision does not set out a broader test for identifying an accidental slip, nor does it discuss the limits of the correction power. It does not explain whether the Tribunal considered evidence beyond Council’s letter, and it does not describe any objection to the proposed correction. Those matters cannot be inferred from this text.

The correction is significant because the earlier sentence, if left as printed, could be read as expressing two conflicting outcomes. The corrected sentence resolves that textual inconsistency. The reasons characterise the problem as clerical or accidental, not as a change to the Tribunal’s substantive planning assessment. The source therefore supports the limited proposition that this Tribunal corrected this order after being satisfied that the contradictory wording was an accidental slip.

The catchwords refer to section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and to several planning controls, including the Residential 1 and Residential 3 Zones, the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2, the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 3, and the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1. But the correction reasons do not analyse those controls. Their presence in the catchwords does not provide the missing merits reasoning.

Before and after state of the law

This decision does not describe a change in the law. It applies the correction power in section 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to the specific wording problem before the Member. The stated legal proposition is narrow: section 119 provides for correction of orders where there has been an accidental slip, among other things.

Before correction, the sentence quoted in the reasons contained both a grant of a permit and a direction that no permit issue. After correction, the conclusion stated only that no permit was granted and that no permit should issue. The change shown in the decision is therefore a change to the wording of this particular order.

The source does not set out the wording of section 119 itself, any prior or later authorities on the provision, or a general account of the law before and after this decision. It would go beyond the available text to treat the case as establishing a comprehensive test for when an order may be corrected, or to say that it changed the law governing correction of Tribunal orders.

The judgment also does not explain the substantive legal basis for refusing the planning permit. Although the catchwords identify the planning scheme provisions and overlays relevant to the broader permit proceeding, the correction decision does not state how those controls applied. Accordingly, the document supports no before-and-after account of the planning law applicable to the land or development proposal.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The first key passage is the Tribunal’s summary of section 119: “Section 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 provides for the correction of orders where, among other things, there has been an accidental slip.” In plain English, the Tribunal considered that this statutory provision allowed it to fix an order if the problem was an accidental error of the relevant kind. The decision does not quote the full statutory section or explain all the circumstances it covers.

The second key passage is the Member’s finding: “I am satisfied that this has occurred here and find it appropriate to authorise the correction of the order.” In plain English, the Member accepted that the contradictory wording was an accidental slip and decided that correcting it was appropriate.

The corrected conclusion is also important: “Having regard to the above reasons no permit is granted and I will direct that no permit issue in relation to Knox permit application P2008/6732.” This states the operative result after correction. It removes the contradictory words indicating that a permit was granted.

The paragraph numbering in the supplied document is irregular: after paragraphs 1 and 2, it restarts at 1 and 2. For that reason, the relevant passages are identified here by their wording rather than by assigning a potentially misleading paragraph number.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

On the facts stated in this decision, the relevant situation was an order whose concluding sentence contained contradictory outcomes. The contradiction was that a permit was said to be granted, while the same sentence directed that no permit issue. The responsible authority brought the wording issue to the Tribunal’s attention, and the Member treated it as an accidental slip.

The decision may therefore be relevant as a limited example where a Tribunal order appears internally inconsistent and a party asks for correction on the basis that the inconsistency is accidental. The crucial feature in this instance was not merely that a party disagreed with the result. The Member was satisfied that an accidental slip had occurred.

The document does not say that any inconsistency, ambiguity, or alleged error automatically qualifies for correction. It does not address a request to change a substantive decision, reconsider evidence, or replace a decision-maker’s reasoning. It also does not describe disputed facts about how the contradiction arose. Those possible situations cannot be treated as resolved by this decision.

For practitioners reviewing a similar record, the judgment makes the exact wording of the order central to understanding the correction. Here, the correction aligned the conclusion with the statement that no permit was granted. It does not provide a general procedural checklist or specify what material must be filed to establish an accidental slip.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later decisions, and the material provided does not include any subsequent case history. No conclusion can therefore be drawn here about whether later courts or tribunals followed, distinguished, applied, or limited this decision.

The decision itself does not cite any other cases. Its reasoning rests on the Member’s description of section 119 and her finding that an accidental slip had occurred. It is consequently not possible, from this source alone, to map a line of precedent or identify how the decision fits into a broader body of authority.

For research purposes, the narrow point that can be extracted is the outcome and reasoning in this correction proceeding. Any account of later treatment would require later judgments or other legal sources, which are not contained in the supplied material.

Still-open questions

Several matters remain unanswered by the correction decision. It does not reproduce the full text of section 119, so it does not show the complete statutory conditions or procedural details governing correction. It does not discuss how an accidental slip is distinguished from a substantive change to an order. It also does not say what evidence or submissions the Tribunal may require in a contested correction application.

The document does not explain why the original permit was refused. The catchwords identify planning zones and overlays, but the correction reasons do not apply them. The underlying merits decision would be needed to understand the planning assessment.

The date inconsistency also remains unresolved. The correcting order refers to an order dated 28 November 2008, while the reasons and case heading refer to an order dated 4 September 2009. The correction decision does not explain whether one date is a typographical error or refers to a different procedural event.

Finally, the source provides no later treatment of the decision. It supports a narrow reading about correction of this particular contradictory order, but does not establish how later tribunals or courts have approached comparable correction requests.

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.