TAS Jurisdiction crossover

[Richard Nicholls]

If a cost order is made by a tribunal Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal (RMPAT) pursuant to Civil Enforcement Proceedings S.64 under a specific act LUPAA Act 1993, and that act has a mechanism to register the order and a certificate of taxation in an other court (Supreme Court) to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, would the applicant have erred if they actually registered the order and certificate pursuant to a different Act (RMPAT Act 1993) that deals with planning appeals. Both Acts appear to be administered by RMPAT

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

If it’s an obvious and technical error, it might be covered by the Tasmanian Supreme Court version of the ‘slip rule’ (assuming they have one).

 

[Richard Nicholls]

If it’s an obvious and technical error, it might be covered by the Tasmanian Supreme Court version of the ‘slip rule’ (assuming they have one).

Thank you Rob,
I have heard of the slip rule, further hearings into this issue are to be in the federal circuit court, bankruptcy proceedings. I understood the slip rule might apply to something like miss quoting the date of an Act correctly as an example. Extending the slip rule to cover the initiation of proceedings under a completely seperate act to the proceedings that led to the cost order seems to me to be different in its nature to an obvious clerical or technical error, for one it may put the respondent at a disadvantage as they may spend their resources and time dealing with sections of an Act that should not have been used? Is there a threshold test for the slip rule in the federal circuit court. Your response was really appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

It depends on the nature of the error. A simple error in transposing is much different from starting the application incorrectly.

And yes, rule 16.05.

 

[Richard Nicholls]

Thank you. That’s been helpful.