RVA Australia Pty Ltd v Rosemary Elizabeth Marzouk (No 2)

Case [2017] NSWLEC 168


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:
S Duggan SC (Applicant)
Submitting Appearance (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Maurice Buckley C T Poole & Son (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/00190236

Judgment

  1. 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:

  1. In Annexure A:

  1. a typographical error where the letters “ofs” should be “of”;

  2. an absence of an indicated space for the provision of the signature, name, or address of the witness; and

  3. 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).

  1. In Annexure B:

  1. in the “datum line” of the certificate of survey, the text “N/A” is incorrect and the text “X-Y” should appear; and

  2. the reference in the deposited plan administration sheet “D.P. 226978” should be “D.P. 226578”.

  1. 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

  1. The Court orders that:

  1. 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)

Details
AGLC
RVA Australia Pty Ltd v Rosemary Elizabeth Marzouk (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 168
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 168
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, RVA Australia Pty Ltd brought an action against Rosemary Elizabeth Marzouk in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred around alleged breaches of contractual obligations by Marzouk, who was previously employed by RVA Australia. RVA Australia claimed that Marzouk had failed to meet certain performance standards and had engaged in conduct detrimental to the company, leading to her termination. Marzouk contested the allegations, asserting that her termination was unjust and that she was owed unpaid wages and other entitlements.

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.