Bergman and Bergman (No. 3)

In *Bergman and Bergman (No. 3)*, Young J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was required to determine a dispute concerning the interpretation of a deed of settlement and its application to the distribution of assets in a deceased estate. The parties involved were the executors of the estate and a beneficiary.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the terms of the deed of settlement, which had been entered into by the parties prior to the deceased's death, effectively governed the distribution of certain assets, or if the deceased's will took precedence. Specifically, the court had to ascertain the intention of the parties at the time the deed was executed and whether it created legally binding obligations that superseded the testamentary wishes expressed in the will.

Young J's reasoning focused on the principles of contract interpretation and the effect of a deed of settlement. His Honour considered the plain meaning of the words used in the deed, the surrounding circumstances at the time of its execution, and the conduct of the parties thereafter. The court applied the principle that a clear and unambiguous deed of settlement, properly executed, will be given effect according to its terms, even if it alters the intended distribution of an estate as expressed in a later will, provided the deed was intended to have that effect. The court found that the deed was intended to be a final and binding agreement that would regulate the parties' rights and obligations concerning the assets in question.

The court ordered that the assets be distributed in accordance with the terms of the deed of settlement, rather than the provisions of the deceased's will.