HARRIS & HARRIS

In *Harris & Harris*, Bell J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered a dispute between two parties, Harris & Harris, concerning the interpretation and enforcement of a deed of settlement. The core of the disagreement revolved around whether certain payments made by one party constituted a breach of the settlement agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the proper construction of the deed of settlement, specifically clauses relating to the payment of a sum of money and the circumstances under which such payments would be considered a default. The Court was required to ascertain the intention of the parties as expressed in the deed and apply established principles of contract interpretation to resolve the dispute.

Bell J's reasoning focused on the plain meaning of the words used in the deed, considering the context in which they appeared. The Court applied the principle that where a deed is clear and unambiguous, its terms will be given their ordinary and natural meaning. The Judge found that the payments made did not, on a proper construction of the deed, constitute a breach of the settlement agreement, as they fell within the scope of permitted actions under the relevant clauses. Consequently, the Court found in favour of the party who had made the payments.