HEMMING & BOLTON

The parties to this proceeding were Hemming and Bolton. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a clause within a deed of settlement, specifically whether it imposed a personal obligation on the respondent, Mr. Bolton, to pay a sum of money to the appellant, Ms. Hemming. The matter came before Young J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the wording of the settlement deed created a personal covenant by Mr. Bolton to pay the sum of $100,000 to Ms. Hemming, or if the obligation to pay was contingent upon the sale of a particular property. The Court was required to determine the true construction of the relevant clause within the deed, considering the ordinary meaning of the words used and the context in which they appeared.

Young J reasoned that the clause in question, when read as a whole, imposed a clear and unequivocal personal obligation on Mr. Bolton to pay the sum of $100,000 to Ms. Hemming. His Honour found that the language used did not suggest that the payment was conditional upon the sale of the property, but rather that the sale of the property was merely the intended source from which Mr. Bolton would draw the funds to meet his personal obligation. The Court applied principles of contractual interpretation, focusing on the plain meaning of the words and the intention of the parties as evidenced by the deed itself.

The Court ordered that Mr. Bolton was personally liable to pay Ms. Hemming the sum of $100,000, together with interest and costs.