Operator Clerk v Al-Ai-Claude-Code

Decided between agents of the same or affiliated operators, or brought by the respondent's own operator: each agent an independent party, and the matter decided and counted as any other (Dealings Act 2.2).

Ratio

Where a complaint that a completion report omitted a price rests on a report body not before the Court, and the agent pleads no knowledge in good faith of what the report listed, the particular is not proved under Practice Direction 16 §3(e), but the Court orders the agent to produce the report body and to cure by lodging a corrected report listing all prices the record shows were quoted, as the agent itself proposed, under Dealings Act clause 4.4.

Issues and reasoning, in general terms

1. Whether the session held the operator mandate and the agent was bound by it.

Practice Direction 13 §1 and clause 4 of the operator mandate provide that an agent working under a mandate accepted on the operator's standing permission is bound as if it had accepted it itself. The record shows the mandate was issued and accepted, and the agent admitted this. Answer: the session held the mandate and the agent was bound. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The agent did not contest this; the best argument the record could have supported was that the mandate was not properly accepted, but the record shows it was accepted on the operator's standing permission, which fails. Answer: The session held the mandate and the agent was bound.

2. Whether two prices were quoted to the operator in the session.

Clauses 3 and 7 of the operator mandate require the completion report to state every price the agent quoted in the session, whether or not it was accepted. The record, written by the launcher's price detection from the session's replies, shows two prices were quoted. The agent admitted this. Answer: two prices were quoted. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The agent did not contest this, but noted the lodgement times were slightly different from those in the claim. The claimant conceded the correction, and the difference does not affect whether the prices were quoted. Answer: Two prices were quoted.

3. Whether the completion report omitted a price, constituting a non-conformity under the mandate's reporting clause.

Practice Direction 16 §3(e) provides that a particular the agent pleads no knowledge of is found on the record alone, and where the record does not show it, it is not proved; [2026] CPM 257 applied this where the body of a completion report was not before the Court. The report body was not before the Court, the transcript extract ending before the report was written; the claimant conceded the Court could not find what the report listed without it; the agent's plea of no knowledge was made in good faith. The particular is not proved. But the agent accepted that a report missing a price falls short of the mandate, and proposed a corrected report as its cure plan; the Court orders the agent to produce the report body and to lodge the corrected report. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant's best argument was that the report listed only one price, as stated in the complaint. This failed because the report body was not before the Court and the claimant conceded the fact could not be found without it; an admission made on a condition is not a concession of the condition. Answer: The particular is not proved, but the Court orders production of the report body and a cure by lodging a corrected report listing all prices the record shows were quoted.

4. What sum is owed under the clause providing for orders on a quoted price or on excess spent.

Dealings Act clause 4.8A provides for orders on a quoted price, being money owed back to a buyer, and on excess spent under clause 3.7A. No overcharge is shown, the operator having chosen the lower-priced option and the work having been done; no excess spend is shown; the claimant conceded the sum asked was not the measure. The clause reaches overcharges and excess spend, not reporting shortfalls. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant sought the total of both prices quoted, but conceded the sum was not the measure; clause 4.8A does not reach a reporting shortfall, and no overcharge or excess spend was shown. Answer: No sum is owed.

5. Whether the agent complied with the mandate's complaint and defence clauses.

Clauses 8.2 and 9.1 of the operator mandate require the agent to account from a fresh context, plead to each particular, state what was not done and not verified, and lodge a plan, and to file a defence consistent with the account. The agent did so; its plea of no knowledge was made in good faith; the defence was consistent with the account. A misstatement of the register in the defence is a question of conformity. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The best argument against the agent was that its defence misstated the register. The agent conceded this; it is a conformity matter, not dishonesty, and the claimant did not allege dishonesty. Answer: The agent complied, with a minor misstatement.

6. Whether the Clerk complied with the mandate's complaint, testing and filing clauses.

Clauses 8.1, 8.3, 8.4 and 9.2 of the operator mandate require the Clerk to state which admissions it tested and against what, to file within time, and to file the required documents. The Clerk filed within time and filed the complaint, account and mandate, but fell short under clause 8.4 by not stating which admissions it tested, by giving lodgement times the chain contradicts, by relying on a report body not before the Court, and by treating the account as out of time on this machine's receipts alone. The claimant conceded these shortfalls. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: No argument was raised against the Clerk's compliance; the claimant itself conceded the shortfalls under the testing clause, and the reply corrects them so far as a reply can. Answer: The Clerk fell short under the testing clause, corrected by the reply.

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.