SENDAK & SENDAK

In the matter of *Sendak & Sendak*, Burchardt J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was required to determine a dispute concerning the interpretation of a deed of settlement and its implications for the division of property between the parties. The core of the disagreement revolved around whether certain assets, specifically shares in a company, were included within the scope of the settlement agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to ascertain the true construction of the deed of settlement, particularly clauses relating to the identification and division of property. This involved considering the intention of the parties at the time the deed was executed and whether the language used unambiguously encompassed the shares in question, or if ambiguity necessitated recourse to extrinsic evidence.

Burchardt J applied established principles of contractual interpretation, emphasizing that the meaning of a deed is to be determined by reference to its text, read in its context. The Court considered the surrounding circumstances and the purpose of the deed to discern the parties' objective intentions. Ultimately, the Court found that the wording of the deed, when read as a whole and in light of the context, did not clearly include the disputed shares within the property division. The Court concluded that the deed was not sufficiently precise to capture these assets.