Claimant's Request for GST on Holdback Amount Rejected by Civil Resolution Tribunal
⚖️ Legal holding
A respondent is not required to repay GST on a holdback amount if the settlement offer did not include it.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The settlement offer did not include repayment of GST on the holdback amount.
- The parties agreed on a net balance for the settlement, without specifying GST.
- The respondent did not know or should not have known about any mistake regarding GST inclusion.
- The amount in question was small enough that a reasonable person would not expect GST to be included.
- The applicant did not provide evidence that the parties agreed GST was payable on the holdback amount.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant argued that the lawyer's offer was a typing error that the respondent took advantage of.
- The applicant did not provide evidence from its lawyer confirming that a typing error was made.
- The applicant did not raise any concerns about the settlement amount within several weeks of receiving the offer.
- The applicant did not provide evidence suggesting that the settlement amount was exclusive of tax.
- The applicant did not prove that the respondent knew or should have known about the alleged mistake.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed the claimant's request for repayment of GST on a holdback amount.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the respondent owed GST on a holdback amount after settling a construction project.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were applied in this decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the settlement offer included GST and whether the claimant could prove a mistake in the offer.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any settlement offers clearly state whether GST is included and provide evidence if claiming a mistake in the offer.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered were the settlement offer and the claimant's invoice showing the GST amount.