Hadid v Schwartz - [2013] HCATrans 313

[2013] HCATrans 313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S124 of 2013

B e t w e e n -
ALBERT HADID
Applicant
and
JERRY SCHWARTZ
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

FRENCH CJ
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2013, AT 9.50 AM

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR D.A. ALLEN, for the applicant. (instructed by Dib Lawyers)

MR J. SLEIGHT: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Neville and Hourn Legal)

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Jackson.

MR JACKSON: Your Honours, we need an extension of time for filing the application.

FRENCH CJ: Is that opposed, Mr Sleight?

MR SLEIGHT: No, it is not.

FRENCH CJ: Extension of time is granted.

MR JACKSON: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honours, the application involves two aspects. One concerns the obligations of the respondent under the agreement in question. The other relates to a loan from the respondent to the applicant. May I deal with them in that order? Your Honour, so far as the agreement is concerned, at the heart of the matter is the application ‑ and I will come back to that in a moment – application of the principles referred to by Justice Mason in Codelfa Constructions (1982) 149 CLR 337 at 352.

Your Honours, in speaking of the application of the principle I am conscious immediately, of course, that reference to the application of a principle rather than identification or description of it may militate against the grant of special leave but, your Honours, a case like the present, in our submission, demonstrates that the practical application of the principles in Codelfa requires further consideration by the Court, more examples in a sense, if I may so put it, of how the concept actually works and, your Honours, we would also rely on this being a visitation case.

The submissions I have just made are demonstrated, in our submission, by the diversity of opinions in the courts below. I will come to the detail very shortly about ‑ ‑ ‑

FRENCH CJ: So far as the principles are concerned, I think there was an express agreement by Justice Basten with the principle stated by Justice Meagher in his ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JACKSON: Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, so far as the judge’s judgments below are concerned, the primary judge held in our favour that he was entitled to go to extrinsic material which would decide the issue again in our favour, a similar view taken by Justice Basten in the Court of Appeal. Justice Macfarlan in the Court of Appeal was against us and his reasons are very much against the use of any extrinsic material. The third judge in the Court of Appeal, Justice Meagher, thought it was a case where there could be resort to extrinsic material but…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hadid v Schwartz and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCATrans 313
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Hadid v Schwartz*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellant, Mr. Hadid, and the respondent, Mr. Schwartz, concerning the enforceability of a settlement agreement. The core of the disagreement lay in whether Mr. Hadid had validly entered into the settlement, which was intended to resolve prior litigation between the parties.

The High Court was required to determine whether the settlement agreement was binding on Mr. Hadid, specifically in light of his assertion that he had not been properly informed of its terms or their implications. This raised questions about the requirements for valid contractual formation, particularly concerning the communication of terms and the understanding of parties entering into such agreements.

The Court ultimately held that the settlement agreement was binding. The reasoning focused on the objective appearance of Mr. Hadid's conduct and the actions of his legal representatives. The Court applied the principle that a party is bound by a settlement agreement entered into by their legal representative, provided that the representative has actual or ostensible authority to do so. In this instance, Mr. Hadid had given his solicitors authority to settle the proceedings, and the solicitors had acted within that authority. The Court found that Mr. Hadid's subsequent claims of misunderstanding or lack of full comprehension did not vitiate the agreement, as the objective evidence pointed to a clear intention to be bound by the settlement reached by his solicitors.

Orders