Home | © 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney for legal practitioners

Deed of release

Jardin and Jardim Investments Pty Ltd v Metcash Ltd and Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] NSWCA 409,

Meagher JA in [70]:

The meaning of the provisions of the Deed of Release is to be determined by what a reasonable person would have understood them to mean.

In circumstances such as here where the language is susceptible of more than one possible meaning, regard should be had not only to the text but also to the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties and the purpose and object of the transaction: Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337 at 352Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council [2002] HCA 5; (2002) 240 CLR 45 at [39]Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35; (2004) 218 CLR 451 at [22]Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165 at [40]Byrnes v Kendle [2011] HCA 26; (2011) 243 CLR 253 at [53], [98].


Adams v Fletcher International Exports PL [2008] NSWCA 238. Handley AJA, Allsop P & Giles JA agreeing. 02.10.08: Receipt of $2,500 under deed of release in industrial relations proceedings, which deed recited specifically injury subject of later workers compensation proceedings, held damages. 

Dedicated costs not damages >>

Previous page: Deductible proportion     Next page: Deemed

© 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney | piets/wcms | Account

Common Law Monthly Summaries

12 editions $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample