Rudd & Riddick (No 2)

In *Rudd & Riddick (No 2)*, Hartnett J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a deed of settlement and its implications for the ongoing obligations of the parties. The case involved an application to enforce certain terms of the deed, which had been entered into to resolve prior litigation between the parties.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had breached the terms of the deed by failing to make a payment that the applicant contended was due and owing. This required the court to construe the relevant clauses of the deed to ascertain the precise nature of the respondent's obligations and the conditions precedent, if any, to those obligations arising.

Hartnett J's reasoning focused on the plain language of the deed and the objective intention of the parties at the time of its execution. The court examined the specific wording of the payment provisions, considering the context in which they appeared within the broader agreement. His Honour concluded that, on a proper construction of the deed, the respondent's obligation to make the payment had indeed arisen and that no condition precedent had prevented it from becoming due. Consequently, the court found that the respondent was in breach of the deed.