GULL & GULL

In the matter of *Gull & Gull*, Mushin J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement. The parties, Gull and Gull, had entered into this agreement to resolve prior litigation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the settlement agreement, which contained a clause requiring one party to pay a sum of money to the other, was enforceable as a deed or merely as a simple contract. This distinction was critical as it affected the limitation period for enforcing the obligation.

Mushin J reasoned that the agreement's form and language indicated an intention to create a deed. The document was expressed to be a deed, and it was executed by the parties in a manner consistent with the execution of a deed under Victorian law. His Honour applied the principles of contractual interpretation, focusing on the clear intention of the parties as evidenced by the document itself. The court found that the settlement agreement was indeed a deed, and therefore the longer limitation period applicable to deeds applied.