British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie & Ors

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited (BATAS) and a group of former employees, represented by Mr Laurie. The core of the dispute concerned the interpretation of a deed of settlement and release entered into between BATAS and the former employees, which purported to release BATAS from all claims, including those arising under the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). The former employees sought to bring proceedings against BATAS alleging breaches of this Act.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the broad release contained in the deed of settlement was effective to prevent the former employees from pursuing their claims under the *Trade Practices Act*. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the language of the deed, when construed according to established principles of contractual interpretation, evinced a clear intention to release claims of that nature, or if such claims fell outside the scope of the release.

The High Court reasoned that the construction of a release clause in a deed must be approached with caution, particularly where it purports to release statutory causes of action. Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the Court held that the deed's language, while broad, did not sufficiently demonstrate a clear and unequivocal intention to release claims arising under the *Trade Practices Act*. The Court emphasised that for a release to be effective against statutory claims, the parties must have had a specific intention to release such claims, which was not evident from the wording of the deed.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the former employees were not prevented by the deed of settlement from pursuing their claims under the *Trade Practices Act*. The matter was remitted to the Federal Court of Australia for further proceedings.