Macdonald v Shinko Australia Pty Ltd

In Macdonald v Shinko Australia Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to enforce a contract for the construction of a building, claiming that there was a mistake in the contract documents. The defendant argued that the contract should be enforced as written and sought summary judgment. The court was required to determine whether there was a common intention of the parties that was not reflected in the written contract, and whether the contract could be rectified to reflect that intention. The court also had to decide whether there was a triable issue on the question of whether the defendant was guilty of innocent misrepresentation, and whether parol evidence should be admitted to determine that issue.

The court found that there was a common intention of the parties that was not reflected in the written contract, and that the contract could be rectified to reflect that intention. The court held that the plaintiff had established a triable issue on the question of whether the defendant was guilty of innocent misrepresentation, and that parol evidence should be admitted to determine that issue. The court found that there was no basis for granting summary judgment, and that the matter should proceed to trial.

The court held that the defendant's application for summary judgment was premature, and that there were triable issues that needed to be determined at trial. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for rectification of the contract, and that the defendant had not demonstrated that there were no triable issues on that question. The court held that parol evidence should be admitted to determine the question of whether the defendant was guilty of innocent misrepresentation, and that that issue should be determined at trial.

The court ordered that the defendant's application for summary judgment be dismissed, and that the matter proceed to trial. The court made no orders as to costs.