CRESSWELL & CONROY

In *Cresswell & Conroy*, the Supreme Court of Victoria, through Obradovic J, considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement. The parties, Cresswell and Conroy, had entered into a deed of settlement to resolve prior litigation. The core of the present dispute revolved around whether Conroy had breached the terms of this settlement deed.

The central legal issue before the court was the proper construction of clause 3(b) of the settlement deed. This clause stipulated that Conroy was to pay Cresswell a sum of money, contingent upon the successful sale of certain shares. The question was whether the sale of those shares had, in fact, been "successful" as contemplated by the deed, thereby triggering Conroy's payment obligation.

Obradovic J's reasoning focused on the ordinary meaning of the words used in clause 3(b) and the context of the settlement deed as a whole. The court determined that "successful sale" did not imply a sale at a particular price or within a specific timeframe, but rather simply a completed transaction of the shares. Applying this interpretation, the court found that the shares had indeed been sold, and therefore, Conroy's obligation to pay Cresswell had arisen. The court ordered that Conroy pay Cresswell the sum stipulated in the settlement deed.