Rekrut and Scott v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd; Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd v Rekrut and Scott (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 64

Rekrut and Scott v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd; Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd v Rekrut and Scott (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 64

The omission from order 7 of the remittal of the claim for Variation 12-Structural Steel was an obvious error because the principal decision stated that the claim was intended to be remitted, including at [7] and [244]. The issue could be determined without a hearing because no submissions were made against the proposed amendment and no party opposed determination on the papers.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) to Amend Orders Under the Slip Rule / On the Papers After Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Application allowed; hearing dispensed with and Registrar directed to amend the notice of decision and statement of reasons.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Orders' 'slip Rule' 'obvious Error' 'dispensing With Hearing' 'remittal']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'consumer and Commercial Proceedings'] ['amendment of Orders' 'slip Rule' 'obvious Error' 'dispensing With Hearing' 'remittal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) to Amend Orders Under the Slip Rule / On the Papers After Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a hearing should be dispensed with for the application under s 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether order 7 in the notice of decision and [445] of the statement of reasons contained an obvious error by omitting the remittal of the claim for Variation 12-Structural Steel.']

Ratio Decidendi

The omission from order 7 of the remittal of the claim for Variation 12-Structural Steel was an obvious error because the principal decision stated that the claim was intended to be remitted, including at [7] and [244]. The issue could be determined without a hearing because no submissions were made against the proposed amendment and no party opposed determination on the papers.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; hearing dispensed with and Registrar directed to amend the notice of decision and statement of reasons.

Orders

  • ['A hearing in respect of the application under s 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is dispensed with under s 50(2) of that Act.' 'The Registrar is directed to alter the text of the notice of decision made on 13 September 2017 and [445] of the statement of reasons for that decision by...