Legal Research
Cases
Humphris-Clark v Lazaridis

Humphris-Clark v Lazaridis

Case [2010] NSWSC 318 27 April 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Humphris-Clark v Lazaridis [2010] NSWSC 318

HEARING DATE(S): 19 April 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
27 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Bergin CJ in Eq

DECISION: Declarations in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Summons. Orders in paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of the Summons.

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT - agreement to settle dispute between parties - deed of release - whether parties reached binding agreement

CASES CITED: Abadeen Group Pty Ltd v Bluestone Property Services Pty Ltd & Ors; Brown & Ors v Hodgkinson & Ors [2009] NSWCA 386
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622
Booker Industries Pty Ltd v Wilson Parking (Qld) Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 600
Brambles Holdings Limited v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Gorrick v Santisi [2010] FMCA 2
Love & Stewart Ltd v S Instone & Co Ltd (1917) 33 TLR 475
Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 210 CLR 181
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Needlework Warehouse Pty Ltd v Chansonette Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1525; (2005) 226 ALR 252
QLD Holdings –1 v Collingwood Holdings [2009] NSWSC 732
Sinclair Scott & Co Ltd v Naughton (1929) 43 CLR 310

PARTIES: Peter Humphris-Clark (Plaintiff)
Ilias Lazaridis (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/290665

COUNSEL: B Shields (Plaintiff)
B R McClintock SC (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Guild Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Thomas Mitchell Solicitors (Defendant)

- 18 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BERGIN CJ in Eq

27 APRIL 2010

2009/290665 PETER HUMPHRIS-CLARK v ILIAS LAZARIDIS

JUDGMENT

1 By Summons filed on 25 September 2009 the plaintiff, Dr Peter Humphris-Clark, seeks a declaration that by agreement with the defendant, Ilias Lazaridis, made on 14 August 2009 (the Agreement), the defendant agreed to: (1) accept the sum $4,999.99 in full and final satisfaction of the claims made by the defendant against the plaintiff in District Court proceedings (No. 204/08) (the District Court proceedings); (2) consent to a verdict being entered in the District Court proceedings in favour of the plaintiff; and (3) execute a Deed of Release.

2 The plaintiff also seeks declarations that the Agreement is valid and enforceable and that he is entitled to have the Agreement specifically performed and carried into effect. Consequential orders are sought. Although the plaintiff in these proceedings was the defendant in the District Court proceedings and the defendant in these proceedings was the plaintiff in the District Court proceedings, I will refer to them as the plaintiff and defendant as named in these proceedings.

3 The matter was heard on 19 April 2010 when Mr BJA Shields, of counsel, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr BR McClintock SC appeared for the defendant.

The District Court proceedings

4 In the District Court proceedings, which were to be heard in Newcastle, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was negligent in the provision of dental services to him on a number of occasions between 29 December 1999 and…

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.

Continue reading Humphris-Clark v Lazaridis

Details

AGLC: Humphris-Clark v Lazaridis [2010] NSWSC 318
Case: [2010] NSWSC 318
Decision Date: 27 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the plaintiff, Humphris-Clark, and the defendant, Lazaridis, was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to enforce an agreement between the parties to settle their disputes, which was recorded in a deed of release. The central issue for the court was whether the parties had reached a binding agreement through the deed of release, or if the deed was merely an agreement to agree in the future.

The court examined the language and content of the deed of release, noting the presence of common terms typically found in binding agreements, such as consideration and mutual assent. The court further considered the circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed, including any evidence of intention to create legal relations. The court held that the language and context of the deed indicated that the parties had indeed reached a binding agreement, with the deed of release constituting a valid and enforceable contract.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of clarity in the terms of settlement agreements, and the necessity for both parties to demonstrate a clear intention to be bound by the terms agreed upon. The court found that the deed of release met these requirements, and thus was a binding contract between the parties. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant was bound by the terms of the deed of release.

The final orders of the court enforced the terms of the deed of release, requiring the defendant to comply with the settlement agreement as outlined in the document. The court further ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders