Roberts and Roberts

In *Roberts and Roberts*, Ryan J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a clause within a deed of settlement. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, sought to enforce certain terms of the deed against the respondent, also named Roberts.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent was obligated under the deed to pay the applicants a sum of money, contingent upon the sale of a specific property. The applicants contended that the conditions for payment had been met, while the respondent argued otherwise, asserting that the property had not been sold in a manner that triggered the payment obligation.

Ryan J's reasoning focused on the plain meaning of the relevant clause within the deed. His Honour applied principles of contractual interpretation, emphasising that the court must ascertain the objective intention of the parties as expressed in the language they used. After examining the specific wording and context of the clause, Ryan J concluded that the respondent's interpretation of the sale condition was not supported by the deed's terms. The court found that the sale, as it occurred, did indeed satisfy the criteria stipulated in the settlement deed for the payment to become due.

Consequently, Ryan J ordered that the respondent was liable to pay the applicants the sum of $100,000, plus interest, in accordance with the terms of the deed of settlement.