Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2009-05-05|Before: Stuart J, Osborn J

For the reasons set out above, we are satisfied that Section 119 empowers us to make the correction sought to the orders in our primary decision, and to correct the Reasons in our primary orders by deleting paragraph 31.
Accordingly, we have made the relevant correction orders set out above.
We note in closing that Council's written submission included the following statement.

Council wishes to make it clear that council is clear in its own mind that a use permit for materials recycling is entirely appropriate in this case and that if some other application were made such as an application under section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (to amend the permit to include permission for the use of the land) Council will support that application.[14]

[2] The 18 December 2008 hearing involved proceedings P3193/2008 and P3177/2008. In the final result, Member Martin's orders of 2 February 2009 made simple administrative orders in relation to the P3193/2008 enforcement proceedings and refused to consider the P3177/2008 application to amend a permit on the basis that the request to do so was not made as soon as practicable after Mr Love had notice of the facts relied upon in this request.

[4] See Batagol v Monk (2000) VAR 357

[5] See Riga v Peninsula Home Improvements [2000] VCAT 56

[6] See for example Hodgson v Mornington Peninsula SC [2000] VCAT 888

[9] See paragraph 6 of the submission of Mr Reilly.

[10] See paragraph 1 of the written submission dated 19 June 2006 of Mr Love's then advocate Mr Graeme Peake of Counsel.

[12]13 See Elyard Corporation Pty Ltd v DDB Needham Sydney Pty Ltd (1995) 61 FCR 385 at 392.

[14] See paragraph 48 of the Maddocks submission.

Environment Act 1987

Thomas & Ors v Whittlesea CC [2009] VCAT 825 (5 May 2009)

The test of whether a mistake or emission is "accidental" is that whether, if the matter had been drawn to the court's attention at the time, it would have made the correction at once: Hatton v Harris [1892] AC 547 at 558.

Finally the court always has a discretion to refuse to make an order under the slip rule if something has intervened which would render it inexpedient or inequitable that it would be made: L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No.2) [1982] HCA 59; (1982) 151 CLR 590 at 597: [1982] HCA 59; 43 ALR 473.

Thomas & Ors v Whittlesea CC [2009] VCAT 825

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (14 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (6)

Thomas & Ors v Whittlesea CC [2009] VCAT 825 (5 May 2009)