Cooke v Woolworths Limited

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Cooke, sought to recover a reward offered by Woolworths Limited for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the "Woolworths bomber". The dispute centred on the interpretation of the terms of the reward offer and whether Mr Cooke had satisfied its conditions.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its disposition of the case, particularly concerning the majority views on the applicant's entitlement to the reward. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal's handling of divergent judicial opinions, especially regarding the quantum of the reward, did not serve the administration of justice. A key point of contention was how an intermediate appellate court should proceed when there is a significant difference of views among its members, with a view to achieving a satisfactory majority result.

The applicant contended that the terms of the reward offer, being brief and addressed to the general public, should have been interpreted in a straightforward manner. They argued that Woolworths, after the event, subjected the simple language to an overly elaborate and inappropriate analysis. The applicant submitted that the contra proferentem rule should have been robustly applied. While three of the four judges in the Court of Appeal found that the applicant had accepted the offer and satisfied its conditions, the ultimate outcome was complicated by the differing views on the quantum of the reward and the judgment of one judge who found the applicant should fail altogether.

The applicant sought special leave to appeal under section 35A of the relevant Act, arguing that the case had been disposed of in a manner that did not do credit to the administration of justice. The applicant's counsel specifically highlighted the perceived impropriety of an intermediate appellate court failing to achieve a conclusive result due to a divergence of judicial opinion, particularly when a majority of judges had indicated entitlement to the full reward.