Clintway Pty Ltd v Humich - [2011] WADC 84

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: CLINTWAY PTY LTD -v- HUMICH [2011] WADC 84

CORAM: BOWDEN DCJ

HEARD: 6, 7 & 8 APRIL 2011

DELIVERED : 3 JUNE 2011

FILE NO/S: CIV 3406 of 2009

BETWEEN: CLINTWAY PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
IVAN HUMICH
HUMICH NOMINEES PTY LTD
ANILIA PTY LTD
Defendants

Catchwords:

Construction of settlement agreement entered into at a Supreme Court mediation conference

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Settlement agreement - settled all matters between the parties including matters the plaintiff now seeks to litigate

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr G Abbott
Defendants: Mr M Solomon

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Q Legal
Defendants: Ilberys

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

Alpha Wealth Financial Services Pty Ltd v Frankland River Olive Company Ltd [2008] WASCA 119
Australian Zircon NL v Austpac Resources NL [2010] WASC 166
Butler v St John of God Health Care Inc [2008] WASCA 174
Chemeq Ltd v Shepherd Investments International Ltd [2007] WASCA 117
Clintway Pty Ltd v The Owners of Strata Plan 21805 [2008] WASAT 294
Clintway Pty Ltd v The Owners of Strata Plan 21805 [2008] WASAT 294 (S)
Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337
Fazio v Fazio [2010] WASC 263
Fountain v Alexander (1982) 150 CLR 615
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 407; (2009) 264 ALR 15
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v BHP Minerals Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 259
Hoddell v Hoddel Pty Ltd [1999] WASC 156
Home Building Society Ltd v Pourzand [2005] WASCA 242
Hughes v St Barbara Mines Ltd [No 4] [2010] WASC 160
International Air Transport Association v Ansett Australia Holdings Ltd [2008] HCA 3; (2008) 234 CLR 151
Joye v Beach Petroleum NL (1996) 137 ALR 506
Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 210 CLR 181
Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKSC 44
O'Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356
Programme Holdings Pty Ltd v Van Gogh Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 79
Queensland Alumina Ltd v Alinta DQP Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 387
The State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) [1999] HCA 3; (1999) 160 ALR 588
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165
United States of America v Castro (1987) 813 F 2d 571
Zhu v Treasurer of New South Wales [2004] HCA 56; (2004) 218 CLR 530

BOWDEN DCJ: The preliminary issue arising in this case is whether an agreement, said to be partly written and partly oral, entered into by the parties on 15 July 2003 operates as a complete settlement, compromise and release of the claim sought to be advanced in these proceedings.
It involves ascertaining the terms of the agreement and the construction of those terms.
Before answering those questions, it is necessary to set out a brief history…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Clintway Pty Ltd v Humich and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] WADC 84
Decision Date: 3 JUNE 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Clintway Pty Ltd v Humich, determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, involved a dispute between two companies regarding the construction of a settlement agreement. Clintway Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought to enforce the terms of an agreement that had been reached during a mediation conference facilitated by the court. The defendant, Humich, challenged the enforceability of the agreement, asserting that it had been misunderstood or misrepresented during the mediation process. The primary focus of the case was on whether the terms of the settlement agreement, as articulated by the mediator, accurately reflected the intentions of both parties.

The court had to decide whether the settlement agreement was binding and, if so, what the terms of the agreement entailed. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the mediator's articulation of the settlement terms could be considered a binding record of the agreement reached, or if there were grounds to argue that the terms were miscommunicated or misinterpreted. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any subsequent actions by the parties could be construed as an acceptance or rejection of the mediator's articulation.

In its reasoning, the court held that the mediator's articulation of the settlement terms constituted a binding record of the agreement reached between the parties. The court found that both parties had acted in a manner consistent with their acceptance of the mediator's terms. The court further determined that there was no evidence to suggest that either party had misunderstood or misrepresented the terms during the mediation conference. Consequently, the court ruled that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that once parties reach an agreement during a mediation process overseen by a court, the mediator's articulation of that agreement is generally binding, absent any clear evidence of a misunderstanding or misrepresentation.

The final orders of the court required Humich to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as articulated by the mediator, thereby enforcing the agreement reached during the mediation conference. The court's decision underscored the importance of the mediator's role in documenting and confirming settlement agreements during court-facilitated mediations.

Orders