I am appealing against a QCAT decision in which I was the respondent. At the hearing it was clear that the adjudicator had not read any of my submissions, which were detailed and well argued. He just stated that he would be hearing oral submissions. It was notable that he had little understanding of the case, when, explaining his decision he commenced by mixing up the identities of myself, the respondent, with the landlady, who was the applicant. Consequently, trying to follow the rest of his decision in this manner, caused me to not fully understand it.
At my request, I received a copy of the transcript and am very concerned that the adjudicator made incorrect reference to me as the applicant 10 times out of 15, corrected himself once but immediately recorrected back to the status quo. Twice he got it right and called me the respondent. Correspondingly, he referred to the applicant as the respondent. Twice it was difficult to tell, as his comments could relate to either of us. I think this demonstrates his lack of understanding and failure to focus on what was in front of him, had he read it. So I think his judgement was poorly deliberated and unsound.
Is it worth my bringing this up in a submission to the appeals tribunal to support the error of fact I have already state? Or is this new evidence and does it have a legal description? Thank you.
At my request, I received a copy of the transcript and am very concerned that the adjudicator made incorrect reference to me as the applicant 10 times out of 15, corrected himself once but immediately recorrected back to the status quo. Twice he got it right and called me the respondent. Correspondingly, he referred to the applicant as the respondent. Twice it was difficult to tell, as his comments could relate to either of us. I think this demonstrates his lack of understanding and failure to focus on what was in front of him, had he read it. So I think his judgement was poorly deliberated and unsound.
Is it worth my bringing this up in a submission to the appeals tribunal to support the error of fact I have already state? Or is this new evidence and does it have a legal description? Thank you.
