Harty & Harty

The case of *Harty & Harty* concerned a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation of a deed of settlement. The primary issue before Macmillan J was whether the deed, which purported to settle all claims between the parties, effectively extinguished a specific claim for equitable relief.

Macmillan J was required to determine whether the language of the deed of settlement was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to encompass the equitable claim, or if the claim fell outside the scope of the settlement. This involved an analysis of the principles governing the construction of settlement deeds and the intention of the parties at the time of execution.

The court's reasoning focused on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the deed, read in their context. Macmillan J applied the principle that a general release or settlement clause will be construed to cover only those claims that the parties intended to compromise. In this instance, the court found that the wording of the deed, particularly the specific enumeration of claims settled, did not clearly indicate an intention to extinguish the equitable claim. Consequently, the equitable claim was not barred by the deed of settlement.