Legal Research
Cases
Scaffidi v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd

Scaffidi v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 1 August 2011 33 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: SCAFFIDI -v- PERPETUAL TRUSTEES VICTORIA LTD [2011] WASCA 159

CORAM: NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA
MAZZA J

HEARD: 15 JUNE 2011

DELIVERED : 1 AUGUST 2011

FILE NO/S: CACV 5 of 2011

BETWEEN: MARIA SCAFFIDI by her next friend THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
Appellant
AND
PERPETUAL TRUSTEES VICTORIA LTD
First Respondent
GIUSEPPE DIEGO SCAFFIDI
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MASTER SANDERSON
Citation  :PERPETUAL TRUSTEES VICTORIA LTD -v- SCAFFIDI [2010] WASC 401
File No  :CIV 1376 of 2008

Catchwords:

Contracts - Deed of settlement - Construction - Whether deed of settlement validly terminated - Whether original cause of action against appellant could be continued - Legal principles concerning releases and covenants not to sue - Whether settlement deed an accord and satisfaction or accord and conditional satisfaction - Person under disability - Effect of court approval

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 70 r 10

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr B W Ashdown
First Respondent : Dr J T Schoombee

Second Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: Public Trustee
First Respondent : Downings Legal

Second Respondent : Oldfield Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd [1987] HCA 15; (1987) 162 CLR 549
Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 66; (2001) 205 CLR 635
Benfield v Australian National Railways Commission (1992) 8 WAR 285
Blue Moon Grill Pty Ltd v Yorkey's Knob Boating Club Inc [2006] QCA 253
Buseska v Sergio (1990) 102 FLR 157
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Cluness [1997] NSWSC 222; (1997) 8 BPR 15,467
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; (2000) 75 ALJR 312
Dalle‑Molle v Manos [2004] SASC 102; (2004) 88 SASR 193
Dalmation Nominees Pty Ltd v Marinovich (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980670, 20 November 1998)
Eden v Naish (1878) 7 Ch D 781
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Orica Ltd [1998] HCA 33; (1998) 194 CLR 500
Gibbons v Wright [1954] HCA 17; (1954) 91 CLR 423
Howard F Hudson Pty Ltd v Ronayne [1972] HCA 3; (1972) 126 CLR 449
JF & BE Palmer Pty Ltd v Blowers & Lowe Pty Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 89; (1987) 75 ALR 509
Leonard v Booth [1954] HCA 64; (1954) 91 CLR 452
Mayfair Trading Co Pty Ltd v Dreyer [1958] HCA 55; (1958) 101 CLR 428
McDermott v Black [1940] HCA 4; (1940) 63 CLR 161
McTier v Haupt (1992) 1 VR 653
Nissho Iwai (Australia) Ltd v Shrian Oskar [1984] WAR 53
Osborn v McDermott (1998) 3 VR 1
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Scaffidi [2010] WASC 401
Rhodes v Swithenbank (1889) 22 QBD 577
Roberts v Gippsland Agricultural and Earth Moving Contracting Co Pty Ltd [1956] VLR 555
Saunders v Milsome (1866)

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Scaffidi v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] WASCA 159
Decision Date: 1 AUGUST 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Scaffidi v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd, the dispute centred on the interpretation and validity of a deed of settlement entered into between the parties. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd, sought to enforce the terms of the settlement deed, arguing that it constituted a valid and binding agreement that terminated the appellant's claims against it. The appellant, Scaffidi, contested the enforceability of the settlement deed, arguing that it was not a valid termination of his original cause of action and that certain terms of the deed were unenforceable due to their conditional nature.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the settlement deed constituted a valid termination of the appellant's original cause of action against the respondent. The court had to determine the effect of the settlement deed on the appellant's claims, considering the principles of contract law, including the enforceability of releases and covenants not to sue. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether the settlement deed should be characterised as an accord and satisfaction or an accord and conditional satisfaction, and the implications of these characterisations on the enforceability of the agreement. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the appellant, as a person under disability, was capable of entering into a binding agreement and the impact of court approval on the enforceability of the settlement deed.

The court held that the settlement deed was a valid and binding agreement that terminated the appellant's original cause of action against the respondent. The court found that the deed constituted an accord and conditional satisfaction, as the payment made under the deed was contingent upon the appellant's release of all claims against the respondent. The court further held that the appellant, despite being a person under disability, was capable of entering into a binding agreement, particularly as the court had approved the settlement deed. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to enforce the terms of the settlement deed, and the appellant's claims against the respondent were terminated. The court made orders in favour of the respondent, enforcing the settlement deed and dismissing the appellant's claims.

Orders