Legal Research
Cases
Boon v Burt

Boon v Burt

Case [2020] WASC 64 5 March 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   BOON -v- BURT [2020] WASC 64
CORAM:   CURTHOYS J
HEARD:   10 JUNE 2019
DELIVERED          :   5 MARCH 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1036 of 2017
BETWEEN:   PENELOPE ANN BOON
First Plaintiff
JENNIFER MARGARET PHILLIPS
Second Plaintiff
PENELOPE ANN BOON as administrator of the estate of WINSOME MABEL BURT
JENNIFER MARGARET PHILLIPS as administrator of the estate of WINSOME MABEL BURT
Third Plaintiffs
AND
REBECCA ANTIONETTE BURT as executrix of the estate of PAULL REGINALD GEORGE BURT
First Defendant
BURT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Second Defendant
DOORAWARRAH PASTORAL CO PTY LTD
Third Defendant
THE BRICK HOUSE COMPANY PTY LIMITED
Fourth Defendant

Catchwords:

Deed - Construction - Uncertainty - Estoppel

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for plaintiffs
First defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	M D Cuerden SC & M Curwood
Second Plaintiff	:	M D Cuerden SC & M Curwood
Third Plaintiffs	:	M D Cuerden SC & M Curwood
First Defendant	:	P MacMillan
Second Defendant	:
Third Defendant	:
Fourth Defendant	:

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Arns & Associates
Second Plaintiff	:	Arns & Associates
Third Plaintiffs	:	Arns & Associates
First Defendant	:	Pacer Legal
Second Defendant	:
Third Defendant	:
Fourth Defendant	:

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Alpha Wealth Financial Resources v Frankland River Olive Co [2008] WASCA 119
Australian Goldfields NL (in liq) v North Australian Diamonds NL [2009] WASCA 98
Boreland v Docker [2007] NSWCA 94
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Bytan Pty Ltd v BB Australia Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 233
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32; (2014) 253 CLR 169
Fairbairn v Varvaressos (2010) 78 NSWLR 577 (2010); [2010] NSWCA 234
First Trade Consulting v GRD Kirfield
[2006] WASCA 175
Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 407; (2009) 76 NSWLR 603
Greer v Kettle [1938] AC 156
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539
In re Victoria Permanent Benefit Building Investment and Freehold Land Society (1870) LR 9 Eq 597
Legione v Hateley 152 CLR 406
Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA [2014] NSWCA 184; (2014) 89 NSWLR 633
McCourt v Cranston [2012] WASCA 60
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd (No 6) (2015) 329 ALR 1 [2015] FCA 825
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 194
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 37; (2015) 256 CLR 104
Re Ellenborough [1903] 1 Ch 697
Riseda Nominees Pty Ltd v St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Ltd [1998] 2 VR 70
Rodda v Ian Rodda Pty Ltd (2015) SASC 95
Ryledar Pty Ltd v Euphoric Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 65
Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] NSWCA 11
Sibonna Nominees Pty Ltd v Vouzas [2013] VSCA 369
Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312
Upper Hunter County District Council…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Boon v Burt

Details

AGLC: Boon v Burt [2020] WASC 64
Case: [2020] WASC 64
Decision Date: 5 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Boon v Burt involved a dispute concerning the interpretation of a deed and the principles of estoppel. The parties, Boon and Burt, had entered into a written agreement outlining their respective obligations and rights. However, a particular clause within the deed was deemed ambiguous and subject to interpretation. The court was tasked with determining the true meaning of the disputed clause and whether estoppel principles applied to resolve any uncertainty.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the construction of the ambiguous clause in the deed and the applicability of estoppel. The court needed to ascertain whether the language of the deed was sufficiently clear to be enforced as written or whether it required interpretation to give effect to the parties' intentions. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the principles of estoppel could be invoked to prevent one party from denying the effect of their own ambiguous language.

In its judgment, the court examined the language of the deed and the context in which it was written. It found that the clause in question was ambiguous and could be interpreted in more than one way. The court then applied established principles of contract interpretation, taking into account the surrounding circumstances and the objectives of the agreement. The court concluded that the deed should be interpreted in a manner that gave effect to the presumed intentions of the parties. Additionally, the court found that estoppel principles did not apply to resolve the ambiguity, as there was no evidence that one party had misled the other regarding the meaning of the clause.

The court ordered that the deed be interpreted in a way that gave effect to the parties' intentions, as determined by the court. The court did not find it necessary to make any further orders beyond this interpretation. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of ambiguous clauses in deeds and confirmed the limited role of estoppel in such circumstances.

Orders