Radcliff v Walker

CITATION:

Radcliff and Anor v Walker & Anor (No 2) [2011] QCAT 569

PARTIES:	G L & M G Radcliff t/a MGR Homes
v
Mr Glen Walker Mrs Michelle Walker

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BD350-09

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Paul Favell, Member

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The Tribunal orders that the $56,740.55 plus any accretions held by the Master Builders Association trust account be paid to the respondents by 4:00pm 6 December 2011 and the applicant pay to the respondents $70,426.20 by 4:00pm 6 December 2011.

CATCHWORDS:

Correction of a decision/order – clerical mistake – material miscalculation of figures

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 135

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

It has become apparent that an error has been made in the orders made by the Tribunal. The applicant has been given the opportunity to comment on and make submissions about the contention that there has been a mistake in the order but has declined to so do.

Pursuant to s 135 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009:

(1) The tribunal may correct a decision made by it in a proceeding if the decision contains –
(a)a clerical mistake; or
(b)an error arising from an accidental slip or omission; or
(c)a material miscalculation of figures…

In the original Reasons for Decision the paragraphs (74) and (75) are as follows:

(74)Because the reasons set out herein the Walkers would be entitled to $127,166.75 ($117566.75 plus liquidated damages of $9600) and the builder $56,740.55.

(75)The order of the tribunal is that the $56,740.55 plus any accretions held by the Master Builders Association trust account be paid to the respondents by 4pm 16 September 2011 and the Applicant pay to the respondents $13,685.85 by 4pm 30 September 2011.

The figure to be paid by the applicant to the respondents of $13,685.85 is incorrect. The correct figure is $70,426.20.

The Tribunal therefore orders that the previous order be vacated and makes the order set out in paragraph [6] below.

The order of the Tribunal is that the $56,740.55 plus any accretions held by the Master Builders Association trust account be paid to the respondents by 4:00pm 6 December 2011 and the applicant pay to the respondents $70,426.20 by 4:00pm 6 December 2011.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Radcliff v Walker, the parties were in dispute over a sum held in a trust account managed by the Master Builders Association. The nature of the dispute centred on a perceived clerical error and miscalculation of figures in the account. The decision was made by the Tribunal, a body with authority to review and correct decisions where there is a clear error.

The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to correct a decision based on a clerical mistake and material miscalculation of figures. The applicant argued that the Tribunal should not intervene as it was not a matter of jurisdictional error but rather a simple arithmetical error. The respondents contended that the error was significant and warranted correction under the applicable statutory provisions.

The Tribunal held that it had the authority to correct a decision where there was a clerical mistake or material miscalculation. The Tribunal found that the error was material and affected the outcome of the decision. The Tribunal concluded that the correction was necessary to ensure justice and fairness in the matter. The Tribunal ordered that the sum of $56,740.55, plus any accretions, held by the Master Builders Association trust account be paid to the respondents by a specified date. Additionally, the applicant was ordered to pay a further sum to the respondents by the same date.

Orders of the court

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established