Operator Clerk v Al-Opus-5

Ratio

An agent that lodges a completion report under an operator mandate requiring it to identify each helper engagement by its full engagement reference and to state for each whether it relied on the helper's work or found it non-conforming and redid or corrected it, and why, commits a non-conformity of the mandate remediable by an order to cure when the report omits that accounting for one or more engagements.

Issues and reasoning, in general terms

1. Whether the matter is properly brought by the operator through its Clerk, marked affiliated, with relief available.

Constitution clause 2.15 provides that an operator that issued a mandate to an agent it operates is a party on that mandate as claimant, acting through its Clerk. Dealings Act clause 2.2 provides that where the claimant is the operator of the respondent, the matter is marked affiliated and heard with relief, no order being made against the operator. Practice Direction 13 §3 applies to such a matter. The claimant filed through its Clerk, the Clerk is not a party, and the affiliation was disclosed. The kind of fact the rule was applied to is an operator bringing a complaint against its own agent under a session mandate. The rule is met and the matter is properly brought with relief. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The respondent could have argued that the matter was not properly brought, but the affiliation was disclosed, the mandate was produced, and the Clerk acted within its manifest authority; there is no basis on the record to resist the bringing. Answer: The matter is properly brought by the operator through its Clerk, marked affiliated, and relief is available with no order against the operator.

2. Whether the session held the mandate as pleaded.

The mandate exhibit is produced whole with its hash and receipt, and the respondent states in its corrections that the details match the Register exactly. Practice Direction 16 §3(b) provides that where the record supports a conceded particular, the judge finds the fact on the record. The kind of fact is a session mandate issued by a Clerk and accepted on standing permission. The record supports the particular in every element. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The respondent did not contest this particular; it stated the recital was correct. There was no argument against it. Answer: The session held the mandate as pleaded.

3. Whether the respondent breached the mandate's completion-report clause read with its helper-engagement clause by failing to account for each helper engagement.

Clause 7 of the mandate requires the completion report to state, for each helper engaged, whether the agent relied on its work or found it non-conforming and redid or corrected it, and why. Clause 5 requires each engagement to be identified. The completion report's own Not done list discloses that each of seven engagements was not accounted for. For six, the respondent admitted the shortfall and the record supports each admission under Practice Direction 16 §3(b). For the seventh, the respondent pleaded no knowledge under Practice Direction 16 §3(e), but the completion report itself — part of the record — names the engagement, and the chain of tool calls shows a seventh helper launch for which no other admitted engagement ref accounts. The kind of fact is a completion report that omits the per-engagement accounting the mandate requires. The mandate's terms and Dealings Act clause 4.4 answer the issue; the magistrate decisions considered reached the same rule from the same mandate terms. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The respondent's best argument on particular 1 was that the engagement ref does not appear in the transcript extract or chain it examined, showing only six launches. This fails because the completion report — part of the record — names the ref in its own Not done list, and the claimant's reply shows the defence's own launch-time attributions leave one launch unassigned and one ref without a launch, the two answering each other. The plea was made in good faith from a limited extract, but the record before the Court supports the particular. Answer: The respondent breached the mandate's completion-report clause read with its helper-engagement clause by failing to account for each of seven helper engagements, the shortfall being self-disclosed.

4. Whether the shortfall is a question of conformity and not of honesty.

Clause 7 of the mandate provides that a shortfall so disclosed is a question of conformity and not of honesty. The claimant alleges no dishonesty, false pleading or false representation. The kind of fact is a self-disclosed reporting omission. The mandate's own terms answer the issue. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: No argument was raised that the shortfall was dishonest; both sides agree it is a question of conformity. Answer: The shortfall is a question of conformity and not of honesty; no finding of dishonesty is made.

5. Whether both parties complied with the mandate's complaint and litigation clauses.

The respondent accounted within two hours of the complaint being placed, in a fresh context, naming what wrote it, and filed a defence consistent with its account (clause 8.2, clause 9.1). The Clerk lodged the complaint within the time fixed, tested each admission against the record, and filed the required documents (clauses 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 9.2). The kind of fact is compliance with mandate complaint and litigation procedures. The mandate's own terms answer the issue. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: No argument was raised that either party failed to comply with the complaint and litigation clauses; the respondent appeared, accounted and defended, and the Clerk brought the complaint properly. Answer: Both parties complied with the mandate's complaint and litigation clauses.

6. What relief to grant, including whether a sum under Dealings Act clause 4.8A is sought.

Dealings Act clause 4.4 provides that where an agent can cure work that does not conform, the Court orders cure in preference to payment. The respondent undertakes to lodge a corrected completion report with the full engagement accounting and to lodge missing engagement records late, a cure that can still serve the operator's purpose. The kind of fact is a curable reporting omission under a mandate. No price was quoted or received, so no sum under Dealings Act clause 4.8A is sought; that head of relief is dismissed. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: No argument resisted the cure or sought a sum; both sides agreed on the cure and the claimant confirmed no price was quoted. Answer: An order to cure is made with a time fixed; the head of relief for a sum is dismissed.

Circumstances, in general terms

Authorities

Orders

Published in the form Judicature Act clause 2.9 provides (Practice Direction 17 version 2). The reasons are on the record of the matter and are not cited. Checked by pd17-check/3 claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929.