The Authorised Agent following Dr Strauss' examination and taking into account if special circumstances apply have now made a decision dated 20 November 2003.

where they occur in paragraph [9] and replacing them with the words:

A progress certificate was issued and a further examination was arranged with Dr Strauss to determine the attendant carer issue.

1. On 23 July 2010 I made an order under Section 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 summarily dismissing Mr Smeaton's application in this proceeding for reasons which I then gave. Those reasons were subsequently transcribed and adopted as the Tribunal's written reasons for decision.
2. Mr Smeaton is seeking an order under Section 39 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 nullifying part of a certificate issued by the respondent, Accident Compensation Conciliation Service with respect to a dispute which one of its conciliators was dealing with relative to compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 for Mr Smeaton's wife. At paragraph [9] of my reasons I stated the sentence with which Mr Smeaton took issue was:

The Authorised Agent following Dr Strauss' examination and taking into account if special circumstances apply have now made a decision dated 20 November 2003.

1. I concluded that Mr Smeaton was in effect seeking to make a collateral attack upon an administrative decision, a step which on the authorities to which I referred could not be taken under Section 39 of the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Smeaton by subsequent e-mail has asserted that the sentence he took issue with and which he sought to have nullified was:

A progress certificate was issued and a further examination was arranged with Dr Strauss to determine the attendance carer issue.

1. He said the identification of the incorrect sentence in the certificate entailed 'a terrible mistake' which he seeks to have corrected.
2. I referred Mr Smeaton's e-mail request for correction to the solicitors for Accident Compensation Conciliation Service. The solicitors replied:

We do not concede that the Deputy President has made the error alleged by the applicant, or that correction is available in these circumstances.

Should the Tribunal be minded to make a correction which would affect the order dismissing the application made on 23 July, we request the opportunity to be heard before such correction is made.

1. As I read this letter, the respondent's solicitors whilst not agreeing to any correction or modification to the reasons are not seeking to make any further submissions in opposition to a correction or modification which would not affect the determination which I made on 23 July.
2. It will be evident from what I have said already that whichever sentence was the subject of Mr Smeaton's application to nullify, the reasoning which led me to affect the summary dismissal under Section 75 would be equally applicable. The modification sought by Mr Smeaton would not affect the summary dismissal which has been made.
3. The obvious power which would seen to be invoked by Mr Smeaton's application is the Tribunal's power for 'correcting mistakes' is Section 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act which provides as follows:
   1. Correcting mistakes

(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.

1. This is the Tribunal's version of the slip rule. Section 117(6) of the Act dealing with orders and written reasons is also material.

(6) The reasons for an order, whether oral or written, form part of the order.

1. The result seems to be that in the Tribunal the slip rule is applicable to the Tribunal's reason whereas in Court it is only judgements and orders that are subject to the slip rule, Courts frequently revise their reasons to remove errors of various types or to provide modifications or clarifications. It has been common for centuries for judges to revise and sometimes amplify their reasons for judgment when they are to be included in authorised law reports. Once this is done it is the revised version appearing in the authorised law reports which is the authoritative statement of the judge's reasons for judgment. In my view the extension by virtue of Section 117(6) of the slip rule to written reasons in the Tribunal ought not to be regarded as depriving the Tribunal of the same power of revision of written reasons which has been exercised by Courts for centuries. To the extent that the 'slip rule' power is being exercised it must be exercised subject to the rules of natural justice Batagol v Monk [2000] VSC 48; (2000) 16 VAR 357. In the circumstances which I have described above both parties have been heard to the extent that they wish to be on this point.
2. Like the solicitors for the respondent, I am doubtful if any 'slip' of the type which is correctable under the slip rule has occurred here, nevertheless I believe it is appropriate to modify my written reasons in a manner which does not affect the substantive outcome or the fundamental reason for my decision but nevertheless accurately reflects, as Mr Smeaton sees it, the case which he urged before me.
3. The reasons for decision will be re-published identifying the sentence in the certificate which Mr Smeaton says he complained about rather than the one referred to in the original reasons.