Standard contract alterations violating Clause 33 justified deregistration after material changes misled contracting parties.

Alterations to a prescribed standard contract were held to violate Clause 33 where they went beyond mutually agreed and countersigned changes and materially altered substantive terms in the appellants' favour. The Court found the reprinted form could mislead contracting parties into treating it as the prescribed standard form, and treated the extensive amendments as inconsistent with the required format. Deregistration was therefore justified and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alterations made by the appellants to the prescribed standard contract violated Clause 33 and justified deregistration.

Analysis: The contract form prescribed by the registering authority was required to be used in conformity with its essential terms, and any additions, deletions or amendments were valid only if mutually agreed and countersigned, while remaining consistent with the standard form. The alterations made by the appellants were found to be extensive and material, affecting several substantive clauses and altering the contract in a manner favourable to the appellants. The Court also noted that the reprinted form could mislead contracting parties into believing that it was the prescribed standard form.

Conclusion: The breach of Clause 33 was established and the deregistration order was justified. The appeal failed.

---