Legal Research
Cases
Grainger v Williams

Grainger v Williams

Case [1999] WADC 57 24 August 1999

Contract Formation

Implied Terms

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: GRAINGER -v- WILLIAMS & ORS [1999] WADC 57

CORAM: DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

HEARD: 9 AUGUST 1999

DELIVERED : 24 AUGUST 1999

FILE NO/S: CIV 237 of 1999

BETWEEN: GEOFF ORMOND GRAINGER AND JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER
Plaintiffs
AND
GALE CURTIS WILLIAMS
First Defendant
RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS
Second Defendant
MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Western Australia - Rules of Supreme Court O14 - Agreements to lease - Terms of lease - Whether additional terms should be implied

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application granted

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs:     Mr M G Clay
First Defendant             :     Mr M A R Bundell
Second Defendant         :     Mr M A R Bundell
Third Defendant           :     Mr M A R Bundell

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs:     Martin de Haas
First Defendant             :     Solomon Brothers
Second Defendant         :     Solomon Brothers
Third Defendant           :     Solomon Brothers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177
Birch Investments Pty Ltd v Lim; unreported; SCt of WA; BC8801057; 12 July 1988
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1978) 52 ALJR 20
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71
Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 185 CLR 410
Challenge Bank Ltd v Walters, unreported; SCt of WA; BC9401701; 31 May 1994
Clay v Karlson (1997) 17 WAR 493
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225
Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 163 ALR 395
Davies v Hastwell-Batten, unreported; SCt of NSW; BC8500510; 27 September 1985
Elliot v Reading [1999] WASCA 11
Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1980] AC 331
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397
Gange v Sullivan (1966) 116 CLR 418
Goodfellow v Life Assurance Co of Australia Ltd [1920] VLR 296
Havenbar Pty Ltd v Butterfield (1974) 133 CLR 449
Hynes v Byrne (1899) 9 QLJ 154
Jones v Dunkell (1959) 101 CLR 298
L'Estrange v Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
Life Insurance Co of Australia Ltd v Phillips (1925) 36 CLR 60
Mackwell v Petkovic, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 990070; 18 February 1999
Miles v Hughes, unreported, SCt of WA; Library No 990009; 11 November 1998
Octavo Investments Pty Ltd v Knight (1979) 144 CLR 360
Richlaw Pty Ltd v Blackburne (1988) 19 WAR 164
Schlesniak v Justelle Nominees Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; BC9301371; 17 August 1993
St Barbara Mines Ltd v Oates, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970026; 6 February 1997
Standard Chartered Bank Ltd v Greater Pacific Investments Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 541
Suttor v Gundowa Proprietary Limited (1960) 81 CLR 418
Urquhart v Macpherson (1878) 3 AC 831
Vacuum Oil v Wiltshire (1945) 72 CLR 319
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT: The matters for determination before me today are two applications for summary judgment, the first being against the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Grainger v Williams

Details

AGLC: Grainger v Williams [1999] WADC 57
Case: [1999] WADC 57
Decision Date: 24 AUGUST 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Grainger v Williams, the parties involved were Grainger, the respondent, and Williams, the appellant. The dispute arose from an agreement for the lease of certain premises, where the respondent sought to establish additional terms within the lease that were not explicitly stated in the initial agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether certain terms could be implied into the lease agreement, despite not being explicitly mentioned in the original contract. The respondent argued that these additional terms were necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, a principle established in the case of BP Refinery v Hastings Shire Council. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that no such terms should be implied as they were not expressly included in the original agreement and the court should not alter the terms agreed upon by the parties.

The court found that while the principle of implying terms to give business efficacy was applicable, it did not extend to the specific terms proposed by the respondent. The court held that the terms in question were not necessary to make the contract effective and that there was no basis to imply them into the agreement. The court emphasised that the terms of the contract should reflect the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement, and that the court should not rewrite the contract to include terms that were not explicitly agreed upon. Consequently, the respondent's claim for additional terms was dismissed.

The court ordered that the lease agreement be enforced as written, without the inclusion of the additional terms proposed by the respondent. The respondent was also required to pay the appellant's costs associated with the appeal.

Orders