Wilks and Wilks

In *Wilks and Wilks*, Dawe J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered a dispute between two parties, Wilks and Wilks, concerning the interpretation of a clause within a deed. The specific nature of the dispute revolved around whether a particular payment constituted a "distribution" for the purposes of the deed.

The central legal issue before the Court was to determine the proper construction of clause 10.1 of the deed, which defined the term "distribution" and stipulated that certain payments were to be treated as distributions. The Court was required to ascertain whether the payment in question fell within this definition, thereby triggering the consequences outlined in the deed.

Dawe J applied principles of contractual interpretation, focusing on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the deed and the context in which they appeared. The Court considered the intention of the parties as evidenced by the language of the deed itself. Ultimately, His Honour found that the payment in question did not meet the criteria for a "distribution" as defined by clause 10.1, as it was not made out of profits or reserves in the manner contemplated by the clause. The Court therefore concluded that the payment was not a distribution for the purposes of the deed.