WARD -v- KEET [2008] WASC 33

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2008] WASC 33
Case No:	CIV:1566/2006	Heard:	14 & 28 FEBRUARY 2008
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	11/03/08
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SUSAN ANNE WARD as executrix of the estate of DOROTHY MURIEL LUKIN JULIA MURIEL LAURISSON as executrix of the estate of DOROTHY MURIEL LUKIN SUSAN ANNE WARD as administratrix of the incapable estate of LOUISE LUKIN JULIA MURIEL LAURISSON as administratrix of the incapable estate of LOUISE LUKIN LAKE WAY STATION PTY LTD (ACN 008 667 169) JOHN FRANCIS DESMOND KEET NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD (ACN 004 044 937) CLIVE STEWART BAIN
Catchwords:	Mediation Application to summarily enforce settlement said to be reached at mediation Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Dalmatian Nominees Pty Ltd v Marinovich (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980670, 20 November 1998)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WARD -v- KEET [2008] WASC 33 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 14 & 28 FEBRUARY 2008 DELIVERED : 12 MARCH 2008 FILE NO/S : CIV 1566 of 2006 BETWEEN : SUSAN ANNE WARD as executrix of the estate of DOROTHY MURIEL LUKIN

First-named First Plaintiff

JULIA MURIEL LAURISSON as executrix of the estate of DOROTHY MURIEL LUKIN

Second-named First Plaintiff

SUSAN ANNE WARD as administratrix of the incapable estate of LOUISE LUKIN

First-named Second Plaintiff

JULIA MURIEL LAURISSON as administratrix of the incapable estate of LOUISE LUKIN

Second-named Second Plaintiff

LAKE WAY STATION PTY LTD (ACN 008 667 169)

Third Plaintiff

AND

JOHN FRANCIS DESMOND KEET

First Defendant

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD (ACN 004 044 937)

Second Defendant

(Page 2)

CLIVE STEWART BAIN

Third Party

Catchwords:

Mediation - Application to summarily enforce settlement said to be reached at mediation - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First-named First Plaintiff : Mr B G Grubb

Second-named First Plaintiff : Mr B G Grubb

First-named Second Plaintiff : Mr B G Grubb

Second-named Second Plaintiff : Mr B G Grubb

Third Plaintiff : Mr B G Grubb

First Defendant : Mr R K O'Connor QC & Mr A M Brook

Second Defendant : Mr J Lin

Third Party : Mr J G Farquharson

(Page 3)

Solicitors:

First-named First Plaintiff : Arthur Metaxas & Co

Second-named First Plaintiff : Arthur Metaxas & Co

First-named Second Plaintiff : Arthur Metaxas & Co

Second-named Second Plaintiff : Arthur Metaxas & Co

Third Plaintiff : Arthur Metaxas & Co

First Defendant : Brook & Co

Second Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Third Party : DLA Phillips Fox

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

Dalmatian Nominees Pty Ltd v Marinovich (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980670, 20 November 1998)

(Page 4)

1 MASTER SANDERSON: This is an application by the plaintiffs seeking to enforce a compromise they allege was reached at mediation. The relief sought in the summons was as follows:

1. a declaration the…

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 Ward v Keet

Details

AGLC: Ward v Keet [2008] WASC 33
Case: [2008] WASC 33
Decision Date: 12 MARCH 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ward v Keet involved a dispute between the parties regarding the enforcement of a settlement agreement allegedly reached during a mediation process. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining the enforceability of the settlement agreement. The applicant, Ward, sought to enforce the settlement agreement through a summary application, arguing that the respondent, Keet, had breached the terms of the agreement. Keet, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was not binding and that the matter should be decided on its own merits.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the settlement agreement reached during the mediation process was binding and enforceable. The court had to consider the circumstances surrounding the mediation, the conduct of the parties, and the principles of contract law applicable to such agreements. The court also needed to determine whether the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness applied to the enforcement of the settlement agreement.

In examining the facts, the court found that the settlement agreement was not binding and, therefore, could not be enforced. The court held that the circumstances surrounding the mediation did not support the existence of a binding agreement. The court found that the parties had not reached a clear and unequivocal agreement during the mediation, and that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness did not apply to enforce the alleged settlement. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to summarily enforce the settlement agreement, leaving the matter to be determined on its own merits. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.