The general words in a release are limited always to that thing or those things which were specially in the contemplation of the parties at the time April 8, 9;
when the release was given. MELBOURNE,
London &South Western Railway Co. v. Blackmore (1870) L.R. 4 H.L. 610 per Lord Westbury, at p. 623, applied.
In cases where to a plaintiff's claim the defendant seeks to rely upon a general release the plaintiff's right to equitable relief will depend upon the principle that a releasee must not use the general words of a release as a means of escaping the fulfilment of obligations falling outside the true purpose of the transaction as ascertained from the nature of the instrument and the surrounding circumstances including the state of knowledge of the respective parties concerning the existence character and extent of the liability in question and the actual intention of the releasor.
Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court), in part affirmed, in part reversed.
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
In an action brought by it in the Supreme Court of New South Wales John Grant &Sons Pty. Ltd. claimed to recover from Kenneth William Grant the sum of £5,480 2s. 10d. The declaration was framed in the form of the common money counts, particulars being shown in the writ as follows :- Sept. 1948
Money payable by the defendant to to
the plaintiff in connection with the Aug. 1950.
erection of the defendant's house at Seaforth :- 1. Wages paid by the plaintiff to
workmen employed in connection with the erection of the said house
workers' compensation and com- mon law risk insurance premiums and of payroll tax attributable to wages paid by the plaintiff to work- men employed in connection with the erection of the said house 3. Work done in and material supplied
from the plaintiff's joinery shop 4. Money paid by the plaintiff for
materials supplied and services rendered by various persons in connection with the erection of the said house 5. Amount wrongly shown in the plain-
tiff's books of account as being payable by the plaintiff to the defendant as a credit by contra from O. A. Murcombe &Co.
200 Os. Od. £2,437 31st March
Money belonging to the plaintiff 1949
being cash received from the Com- monwealth Reconstruction Train- ing Scheme which was appropriated by the defendant to his own use 31st Aug.
Money belonging to the plaintiff 1949
being cash received from the Mer- cantile Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd. which was appropriated by the defendant to his own use Moneys received on or about 15th August 1949 from the Common- wealth Sub-Treasury in respect of Job No. 1089 carried out for the Commonwealth Government which amount was credited by the defend- ant to his…
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 Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 23
Case
[1954] HCA 23
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) sued Kenneth William Grant (the defendant) for £5,480 2s. 10d. The plaintiff's claim was based on various sums allegedly owed by the defendant, including wages paid, insurance premiums, work done, materials supplied, and moneys received by the defendant that belonged to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had released him from these claims by deed. The plaintiff responded with three replications, asserting that the deed of release did not bar its claims. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made orders on demurrers to these replications, and both parties appealed to the High Court of Australia.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether the general words of release in the deed were limited by the recitals and surrounding circumstances, and whether equitable principles could prevent the defendant from relying on the release. Specifically, the court had to determine if the release applied to claims that were not in dispute between the parties at the time the deed was executed, or if the plaintiff was unaware of these claims and did not intend to release them.
The High Court considered the principle that general words in a release are typically limited to the specific matters contemplated by the parties at the time of execution. This principle, rooted in both common law and equity, dictates that a release should not be used to escape obligations falling outside the true purpose of the transaction. The court examined the recitals in the deed, which outlined disputes between two families and a resolution to settle these disputes. The first replication argued that the claims in question were not part of any dispute between the families mentioned in the recitals. The second replication contended that the release should not apply to claims not in actual dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The third replication invoked equitable grounds, asserting that the plaintiff was unaware of the debt, did not intend to release it, and that the defendant knew of the debt and failed to disclose it.
The High Court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision regarding the second and third replications, finding them to be good. The court held that the general words of the release were limited by the specific matters contemplated by the parties and that equitable considerations could prevent the unconscientious reliance on a release where the releasor was unaware of the claim and the releasee had knowledge of it and failed to disclose it. However, the High Court reversed the Supreme Court's decision on the first replication, finding it to be bad. The court concluded that the general words of the release were not necessarily confined to the disputes specifically recited in the deed, and that the broader context of the deed and the intention of the parties were paramount.