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
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 Reid v Howard
Sign in free to access the full text
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.