Reid v Howard

Case [1995] HCATrans 383

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S65 of 1994

B e t w e e n -

HUGH NAIRN REID

Appellant

and

STANLEY JOSEPH HOWARD & CAROLINE JANE HOWARD AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOCELYN JEAN RITCHIE

First Respondents

CAROLINE JANE HOWARD

Second Respondent

CRANWELL PTY LIMITED

Third Respondent

J.W. INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

SUE TURNBULL & JESSIE EILEEN TURNBULL

Fifth Respondents

Consent order

GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 21 DECEMBER 1995, AT 9.32 AM

(Continued from 6/12/95)

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

______________________

HIS HONOUR:   In this matter I have a certificate from the Senior Registrar of the High Court certifying that the parties by their respective solicitors consent to the correction, pursuant to Order 29 rule 11 of the High Court Rules, of the order made on 6 December 1995 by the addition of the words:

“insofar as they relate to the question of self-incrimination”

after the words:

“as to costs”

in the first line of the said order.  It is ordered accordingly.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details
AGLC
Reid v Howard [1995] HCATrans 383
Case
[1995] HCATrans 383
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Reid v Howard* concerned a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation of a deed. The matter came before Gummow J of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent, Howard, was entitled to recover from the appellant, Reid, the sum of £10,000 under the terms of a deed executed between them. This involved determining the proper construction of the deed and the extent of the obligations undertaken by the appellant.

Gummow J's reasoning focused on the principles of contractual interpretation, particularly in relation to deeds. His Honour examined the language of the deed itself, considering the ordinary meaning of the words used and the context in which they appeared. The Court applied established principles of contract law to ascertain the intention of the parties at the time the deed was executed.

The Court found in favour of the respondent, ordering that the appellant pay the sum of £10,000 to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.