Legal Research
Cases
Glew v Greenough

Glew v Greenough

Case [2007] HCATrans 520 6 September 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2007] HCATrans 520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P38 of 2006

B e t w e e n -
WAYNE KENNETH GLEW
First Applicant
KYLIE JUNE GLEW
Second Applicant
and
SHIRE OF GREENOUGH
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2007, AT 9.08 AM

GUMMOW J: The Local Court of Western Australia at Geraldton gave judgment for the respondent and against the applicants for a trivial sum, being arrears of rates. That court rejected the applicants' argument that the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) is unconstitutional, as is s 52 of the Constitution Act 1889 (WA). The District Court of Western Australia dismissed the applicants' appeal. In turn the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed a further appeal as "entirely lacking in legal merit". We agree, and the same expression applies to the prolix, offensive and vexatious documents filed in support of this special leave application.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave. It must be dismissed. I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.09 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details

AGLC: Glew v Greenough [2007] HCATrans 520
Case: [2007] HCATrans 520
Decision Date: 6 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gummow and Heydon JJ of the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellant, Glew, and the respondent, Greenough, concerning the interpretation and effect of a deed of settlement. The core of the disagreement revolved around whether the deed extinguished all claims that Glew might have had against Greenough, including those arising from a prior contract for the sale of land.

The High Court was required to determine whether the language of the deed of settlement was sufficiently comprehensive to release Greenough from all claims that Glew might have had against him, notwithstanding that some of those claims may not have been in contemplation at the time the deed was executed. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles of contractual interpretation as applied to deeds of settlement and the extent to which general words of release could encompass unknown or unquantified future claims.

Their Honours applied established principles of contractual interpretation, emphasising that the meaning of a contract is to be determined by what the parties agreed to, objectively ascertained from the language they used. They considered the context in which the deed was entered into and the ordinary meaning of the words employed. The court found that the deed contained clear and unambiguous language that operated to release Greenough from all claims, demands, and liabilities whatsoever, whether present or future, known or unknown, which Glew had or might have had against Greenough. This broad release was held to be effective in extinguishing Glew's subsequent claims arising from the earlier land sale contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders