COREY & JEBBITT

In the matter of *Corey & Jebbitt*, Kent J of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a deed of settlement. The applicants, Corey and Jebbitt, sought to enforce certain terms of the deed against the respondent, who had allegedly breached its obligations. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the respondent had fulfilled its contractual duties as stipulated in the settlement agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the proper construction of clause 4 of the deed of settlement. Specifically, the Court had to ascertain whether the respondent's actions constituted a fulfilment of its obligations under that clause, or whether it had failed to meet the required standard, thereby breaching the deed. This involved an examination of the language used in the clause and the surrounding context of the settlement.

Kent J applied established principles of contractual interpretation, emphasising the importance of giving effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the deed, unless the context clearly indicated a contrary intention. The Court analysed the specific wording of clause 4, considering the ordinary meaning of the terms and how they applied to the respondent's conduct. His Honour concluded that the respondent's actions did not satisfy the requirements of clause 4, finding that a breach of the deed had occurred.

Consequently, Kent J ordered that the respondent was in breach of the deed of settlement and directed that the parties attend upon the Court for further directions regarding the relief to be granted.