Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: RVA Australia Pty Ltd v Rosemary Elizabeth Marzouk (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 168 Hearing dates: 29 August 2017 Date of orders: 08 December 2017 Decision date: 30 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Robson J Decision: See orders at [3]
Catchwords: SLIP RULE – clerical amendments to the terms of an easement – by consent Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 88B
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 40
Surveying and Spatial Information Regulation 2017 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)Cases Cited: RVA Australia Pty Ltd v Rosemary Elizabeth Marzouk [2017] NSWLEC 160 Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: RVA Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Rosemary Elizabeth Marzouk (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S Duggan SC (Applicant)
Submitting Appearance (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Maurice Buckley C T Poole & Son (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00190236
Judgment
-
On 30 November 2017, I handed down judgment in RVA Australia Pty Ltd v Rosemary Elizabeth Marzouk [2017] NSWLEC 160 imposing an easement, under s 40(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW). The Court orders contained Annexure A, setting out the precise terms of the easement to be created pursuant to s 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) and Annexure B, the deposited plan administration sheet. On 4 December 2017, the applicant’s solicitors approached the Court noting that Annexure A and Annexure B contained a number of minor textual errors being:
In Annexure A:
a typographical error where the letters “ofs” should be “of”;
an absence of an indicated space for the provision of the signature, name, or address of the witness; and
minor changes in the presentation of the administration and plan sheets (which is in a prescribed form) arising from the coming into force on 1 September 2017 of the Surveying and Spatial Information Regulation 2017 (NSW).
In Annexure B:
in the “datum line” of the certificate of survey, the text “N/A” is incorrect and the text “X-Y” should appear; and
the reference in the deposited plan administration sheet “D.P. 226978” should be “D.P. 226578”.
-
Since the applicant’s solicitors approached the Court on 4 December 2017, confirmation has been received that the respondent’s solicitors consent to the above changes, which I consider are minor and able to be effected pursuant to Part 36 rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
Orders
-
The Court orders that:
Pursuant to rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) the orders made in RVA Australia Pty Ltd v Rosemary Elizabeth Marzouk [2017] NSWLEC 160 on 30 November 2017 are amended by omitting Annexure A and Annexure B from those orders and instead substituting Annexure A and Annexure B of this order.
**********
Annexure A - 88K Instrument (83.6 KB, pdf)
Annexure B - Deposited Plan Administration Sheet & Plans of Easement (2.18 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- RVA Australia Pty Ltd v Rosemary Elizabeth Marzouk (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 168
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 168
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Marzouk had breached her employment contract and, if so, whether the termination was justified. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether Marzouk was owed any outstanding remuneration or entitlements following her termination. The court had to carefully review the terms of the employment contract, the evidence of the alleged breaches, and the procedural fairness of the termination process.
The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the contractual obligations and the conduct of the respondent. It was determined that Marzouk had indeed breached the employment contract through her actions, which were found to be detrimental to RVA Australia. The court also found that the termination process was procedurally fair, as RVA Australia had followed the necessary steps outlined in the contract and provided Marzouk with an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Consequently, the court upheld the termination and dismissed Marzouk's claims for unpaid wages and entitlements.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [3]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.