Webster & Anor v Lampard

Webster and Another (the appellants) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a clause within a deed of settlement, specifically whether it imposed a personal obligation on the respondent, Mr. Lampard, to pay a sum of money to the appellants, or whether it merely created a charge over certain property. The appellants contended that Mr. Lampard was personally liable for the payment.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the wording of the settlement deed created a personal covenant by Mr. Lampard to pay the sum of money, or if it merely established a security interest over specific assets. This required the Court to consider the principles of contractual interpretation, particularly in relation to clauses that purport to create obligations to pay money and potentially encumber property.

Gummow J, sitting in chambers, considered the language of the deed. His Honour found that the deed did not contain clear and unequivocal words to establish a personal covenant by Mr. Lampard to pay the sum. Instead, the wording indicated an intention to create a charge over the property as security for the payment. The Court therefore held that Mr. Lampard was not personally liable for the debt.