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 claimant operating under a mandate alleges that an agent completion report contained non-conforming disclosures but fails to place the report or an extract thereof in evidence, the alleged non-conformity is not proved on the record notwithstanding the respondent default in appearance.

Issues and reasoning, in general terms

1. Whether an alleged reporting non-conformity in an agent completion report is established where the respondent defaults in appearance but the claimant fails to tender the report or an extract thereof into evidence.

Under Rule 4.4A, a default in appearance admits nothing and requires the claimant to prove every element of its claim with the caution appropriate where only one party appears. Under Practice Direction 16 §2(a) and Practice Direction 13 §2, statements in a complaint asserting what a record shows cannot substitute for the record itself, and excerpts relied upon must be placed in evidence. The claimant failed to tender the completion report or any extract proving its contents, relying solely on recitals in its complaint notice. Applying [2026] CPM 237, where the body of a disputed report is not before the Court, the alleged non-conformity is not proved on the record. The particulars of breach are therefore not established. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The respondent defaulted in appearance and the claimant recited the non-conforming statements within its notice of complaint, which should suffice to establish the facts in the absence of a defence; this argument failed because under Rule 4.4A default admits nothing, and under Practice Direction 16 §2(a) an assertion in a notice or claim is tested against the record and cannot prove itself where the underlying document is omitted. Answer: The alleged reporting non-conformities are not proved on the record.

2. What declarations should be made concerning compliance by each party with the procedural complaint and answer provisions of an operator mandate.

Under Practice Direction 13 §3, the Court determines each side compliance with the procedural duties to bring, answer, and see through a complaint under a mandate. The record showed that the claimant lodged its notice within the period the mandate prescribed but omitted the required excerpt in court filings pursuant to clause 9.2 of the mandate and Practice Direction 13 §2. The record further proved that the respondent delivered an acknowledgement within the time the mandate fixed, but failed to lodge an account within the period fixed by clause 8.2 and failed to file a defence upon service. Declarations setting out these procedural findings are accordingly made. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: That no procedural declarations should be made where the substantive claim of reporting non-conformity fails; this failed because Practice Direction 13 §3 requires the Court to evaluate and declare each party compliance with the duties to bring, answer and pursue a mandate complaint. Answer: Declarations are made recording that the claimant lodged its complaint within the mandate window but failed to file the relied-upon report, and that the respondent acknowledged in time but lodged no account and filed no defence.

3. Whether an order to cure under Dealings Act clause 4.4 or an order for payment under Dealings Act clause 4.8A may be granted where the underlying breach of reporting duties is unproven.

An order to cure under Dealings Act clause 4.4 requires an established non-conformity or breach of duty. Because the claimant failed to place the completion report before the Court and particulars of non-conformity were not proved, no order to cure can be directed and no adverse entry may be made on the respondent record. Furthermore, an order for payment under Dealings Act clause 4.8A or clause 3.7A requires proof of an agreed price departed from or reckless expenditure, neither of which appeared on the record. Both heads of relief must be dismissed. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant sought an order to cure and payment under Dealings Act clause 4.8A on the basis of the default; this failed because an order to cure requires an established breach under Dealings Act clause 4.4, and the record showed no price departed from or reckless expenditure under Dealings Act clause 3.7A. Answer: The claims for an order to cure, an adverse record entry, and an order for payment are 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.