Corey & Jebbitt (No 3)

In *Corey & Jebbitt (No 3)*, Kent J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a deed of settlement and its application to ongoing litigation. The parties, Corey and Jebbitt, had previously entered into a settlement agreement, but disagreements arose regarding its scope and effect on certain claims that were still before the court.

The central legal issue before Kent J was whether the terms of the deed of settlement effectively extinguished or compromised the specific claims that Jebbitt sought to pursue in the ongoing proceedings. This required an analysis of the language used in the deed, the surrounding circumstances at the time of its execution, and the intention of the parties as evidenced by the document.

Kent J's reasoning focused on the principles of contractual interpretation, particularly as applied to deeds. His Honour examined the express wording of the settlement deed, giving paramount importance to the plain meaning of the terms used. The court considered whether the claims in question fell within the ambit of the general release and indemnity provisions contained within the deed. His Honour concluded that the deed, properly construed, did not operate to release or compromise the specific claims Jebbitt sought to advance, finding that the language used was not sufficiently broad or specific to encompass those particular causes of action.

Consequently, Kent J ordered that Jebbitt was not prevented by the deed of settlement from continuing with the specific claims in the ongoing litigation.