Bright & Anor v Sun Up Solar Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 340

CITATION: Bright & Anor v Sun Up Solar Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 340 PARTIES: Patricia Anne Bright & Colin Paul Bright (Applicants) v Sun Up Solar Pty Ltd ACN 149 072 079 (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: Q1/16 MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters HEARING DATE: 5 August 2016 HEARD AT: Toogoolawah DECISION OF: Magistrate Hackett DELIVERED ON: 5 August 2016 DELIVERED AT: Toogoolawah ORDERS MADE: Application dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Dismissal of matter previously heard and determined by another Member APPEARANCES: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 1 July 2016 the Chief Magistrate, Judge Rinaudo heard and determined the Applicants claim about the installation and operation of solar panels by the Respondent, ordering the Respondent to pay the Applicants a sum of $8,492.86 (including $900 witness expenses and filing fees) (“the Order”). [2] On 19 July 2016, the Applicants applied for an amendment to the Order seeking (a) The supply of individual warranties for all parts; (b) An order for the Respondent to fit the Solar Panels at a minimum 10 degree angle; -- 1 of 2 -- 2 (c) An order for the Respondent to reverse the grid connection done in November 2015; (d) An order that the Respondent do what is necessary for the solar panel system to work efficiently. [3] As I did not hear and determine the Applicant’s claim on 1 July 2016, I was not seized of the Applicants claim. Moreover upon reading the file, I could not find any note or statement by the Chief Magistrate Judge Rinaudo to show that the matter was part-heard on 1 July 2016 or that further submissions for relief would be entertained. As such the matter bears the appearance of being finally adjudicated on 1 July 2016. [4] If the Applicants application on 19 July 2016 is in truth (though not in form) an application for correction (under section 135, QCAT Act) or re-opening (under section 138, QCAT Act), it ought be heard by the Member that made the Order. Moreover at first blush, neither section 135 nor section 138 appear to be enlivened. [5] As such, the Applicant’s claim on 19 July 2016 seeks to re-litigate the claim heard and determined by the Chief Magistrate Judge Rinaudo on 19 July 2016. [6] The application filed on 19 July 2016 is therefore dismissed as the claim was heard to decision by another Member on 1 July 2016. Magistrate A.J.P Hackett -- 2 of 2 --