Jackson v Harrison

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Jackson and Harrison concerning the interpretation and effect of a deed. The central issue revolved around whether Harrison was entitled to a share of the profits from a joint venture, despite the venture's ultimate failure.

The court was required to determine the proper construction of clause 6 of the deed, which stipulated that Harrison was to receive a share of the profits "if and when they are made". The primary legal question was whether this clause created a present entitlement to a share of profits, or whether it was contingent upon the actual realisation of profits.

The High Court held that the phrase "if and when they are made" indicated a condition precedent to Harrison's entitlement. The court reasoned that the language of the clause did not create a present right to a share of profits that might never be realised. Instead, it established a right that would only arise if and when profits were actually made. The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, focusing on the plain meaning of the words used in the deed to ascertain the parties' intentions.

Consequently, the High Court found in favour of Jackson, holding that Harrison was not entitled to a share of the profits as no profits had been made from the joint venture.