Von Schulz & Anor v Moriello - [2000] HCATrans 84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B32 of 1998

B e t w e e n -
KARL AND THERESIA MARTHA CITRA VON SCHULZ
Applicants
and
VALENTINO AND GERARDA MORRIELLO

First Respondents

GRANT CURRIE AND CURE ALL PEST CONTROL PTY LTD
Second Respondents
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 10 MARCH 2000, AT 9.36 AM

MR K. VON SCHULZ: I respectfully ask your Honour ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: We are only taking the appearances at the moment. Do you seek leave to appear on behalf of your wife, as well as yourself?

MR VON SCHULZ: Yes, sir.

GUMMOW J: Yes, thank you.

MR M.M. STEWART: May it please your Honours, I appear on behalf of all the respondents. (instructed by Gadens Lawyers and instructed by Minter Ellison Lawyers)

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr Von Schulz.

MR VON SCHULZ: May I ask your Honours, respectfully, if I could sit down while I am – I cannot – I am poisoned with arsenic and my joints – my legs does not stand up for a while.

GUMMOW J: Yes. The only question is whether the television camera can reach you when you are seated, and the microphone.

MR STEWART: Yes, it will, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: Yes.

MR VON SCHULZ: Thank you, your Honours.

GUMMOW J: That is better. Now, before you start, Mr Von Schulz, you understand we have a system whereby you have no more than 20 minutes to address us, orally?

MR VON SCHULZ: This is what I want to ask your Honours, respectfully, because I am a lay person and this is a case for which we never had a trial in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal and I would be very grateful, your Honours, if you could extend a little bit of more time.

GUMMOW J: No, your task – no.

MR VON SCHULZ: It is impossible for me to present all these cases – these facts here to the –in 20 minutes.

GUMMOW J: No, just listen to me. We have a considerable amount of written material which we have looked at. Now, the ordinary rule ‑ ‑ ‑

MR VON SCHULZ: I cannot hear you, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: The ordinary rule is there is 20 minutes and no more. We have a considerable amount of written material which we have looked at and your task is to assist us by explaining why you say the Court of Appeal was wrong, not to recapitulate the whole history of the matter.

MR VON SCHULZ: All right. The Court of Appeal was wrong because they relied on a terms of settlement – particularly on the terms of settlement which is forged by the solicitors for the respondents and on supplementary page 129 A and B your Honours will find that these terms of…

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 Von Schulz & Anor v Moriello

Details

AGLC: Von Schulz & Anor v Moriello [2000] HCATrans 84
Case: [2000] HCATrans 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Von Schulz and another, sought to appeal a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement. The dispute arose from alleged breaches of this agreement, which had been entered into to resolve prior litigation between the parties. The primary issue before the Full Court, and subsequently before the High Court on appeal, was whether the settlement agreement effectively released the respondents from certain claims.

The High Court was required to determine whether the language of the settlement agreement, particularly the release clause, was sufficiently broad to encompass the claims brought by the applicants. This involved an analysis of the principles of contractual interpretation, specifically how to ascertain the intention of the parties from the words they used in the agreement, and the extent to which a release can operate to extinguish future or unknown claims.

Gummow and Hayne JJ held that the construction of the settlement agreement was a matter of ordinary contractual interpretation. They found that the wording of the release clause, when read in its proper context, was clear and unambiguous in its intention to release the respondents from all claims, including those that were the subject of the applicants' subsequent action. The Court affirmed that a release, if clearly worded, can operate to extinguish claims that have not yet arisen or been specifically contemplated at the time of its execution, provided the language used is sufficiently comprehensive.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders