Brayton & Brayton (No 3)

The parties in this matter were the applicants, Brayton & Brayton, and the respondent, Brayton & Brayton. The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of a deed of settlement and release, specifically regarding the respondent's entitlement to a share of the net proceeds of sale of a property. The case came before Ryan J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent was entitled to a share of the net proceeds of sale of the property, notwithstanding that the sale occurred after the date stipulated in the deed of settlement for the calculation of such proceeds. This involved determining the proper construction of clause 3.2 of the deed, which stipulated that the net proceeds of sale were to be calculated as at 30 June 2019.

Ryan J reasoned that the deed, when read as a whole, indicated an intention that the respondent would receive a share of the net proceeds of sale regardless of when the sale actually occurred. His Honour found that the phrase "as at 30 June 2019" in clause 3.2 referred to the *valuation* of the property for the purpose of calculating the net proceeds, rather than imposing a strict deadline for the sale itself. The Court applied principles of contractual interpretation, focusing on the ordinary meaning of the words used and the overall purpose of the deed.

The Court ordered that the respondent was entitled to a share of the net proceeds of sale of the property, calculated in accordance with the terms of the deed of settlement and release.