Knowles, W.R.G. and Knowles, M.D. - [1987] FamCA 5

In the marriage of KNOWLES, W.R.G. and KNOWLES, M.D.

(1987) FLC ¶91-811

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia at Perth.

Judgment delivered 24 March 1987.

Before: Simpson, Barblett and Strauss JJ.

Simpson, Barblett and Strauss JJ.: We have before us an appeal and cross-appeal from a decree of Anderson J. made on 22 December 1986.

By that decree his Honour ordered the dismissal of an application of the husband filed 16 September 1986 whereby the husband sought:

(i) the revocation of the approval of a maintenance agreement dated 25 March 1980 under sec. 87 of the Family Law Act (``the Act'') pursuant to subsec. (8)(b) and/or (c) of that section;
(ii) a determination pursuant to subsec. (11) of the same section that the maintenance agreement was ``not a valid and enforceable contract'';
(iii) the obligation of the husband pursuant to an agreement dated 2 March 1982 and registered pursuant to sec. 86 of the Act on 3 May 1982 be varied by reducing the quantum of periodic maintenance thereunder; and
(iv) the discharge of any arrears of maintenance pursuant to the last-mentioned agreement.

By his amended notice of appeal the husband sought in lieu of the decree appealed against that the approval be revoked and that it be determined that the agreement dated 25 March 1980 was not a valid and enforceable contract.

By her notice of cross-appeal the wife sought to set aside the order made by his Honour that there be no order for costs and to have an order for costs in her favour substituted in lieu thereof.

The relevant facts are within a narrow compass.

The parties were married on 14 April 1956 and separated on 17 December 1977. A decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage was pronounced on 15 April 1979.

On 25 March 1980 the parties and G. Knowles Pty. Ltd. (``the company'') executed a maintenance agreement (``the sec. 87 agreement'') and a copy of the sec. 87 agreement is annexed hereto and forms part of these reasons for judgment.

The Family Court of Western Australia approved the sec. 87 agreement on 27 March 1980 pursuant to sec. 87 of the Act.

On 2 March 1982 the parties and the company entered into a deed (``the sec. 86 deed'') and a copy of that deed is annexed hereto. The sec. 86 deed was registered in the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to sec. 86 of the Act on 3 May 1982.

On 5 September 1986 the wife filed an application by which she sought, inter alia, to enforce the payment by the husband of arrears of maintenance pursuant to the sec. 87 agreement. In response the husband on 16 September 1986 filed the application to which reference has already been made. It was the latter application which was determined by the trial Judge.

After reviewing the relevant history and making detailed reference to the provisions and the construction of both the sec. 87 agreement and the sec. 86 deed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Knowles, W.R.G. and Knowles, M.D. and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1987] FamCA 5
Decision Date: 24 March 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this appeal were W.R.G. Knowles and M.D. Knowles, who were the respondents in the original proceedings, and the appellant, who was the applicant in the original proceedings. The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of a deed of settlement and release, and specifically whether the appellant had breached its terms by failing to make certain payments. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant had breached the deed of settlement and release by failing to pay the respondents the sum of $100,000, plus interest, by 30 June 2011. This required the Court to determine the proper construction of clause 3(a) of the deed, which stipulated the payment obligation, and to consider whether the appellant had a valid defence to the claim for payment.

The Court of Appeal found that the language of clause 3(a) was clear and unambiguous, establishing a positive obligation on the appellant to pay the specified sum by the due date. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments that the payment was conditional or that there had been a mutual intention to vary the terms of the deed. The Court applied established principles of contractual interpretation, emphasising the importance of giving effect to the plain meaning of the words used in the deed. The Court also considered the conduct of the parties in relation to the deed, finding that it did not support the appellant's interpretation.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders