William Robert Wilson v Waigani Pty Ltd (ACN 005 481 818) and Ors (according to the attached Schedule)

The case before the court involved William Robert Wilson, an applicant, and Waigani Pty Ltd and others, the respondents. The dispute centred around unit trusts established for the purpose of land development. The applicant, Mr Wilson, had conducted businesses of the trustee companies, while the respondents provided finance. The relationship between the unitholders deteriorated, resulting in the applicant leaving the businesses without redeeming his unit holdings. Approximately ten years later, the applicant sought to realise his unit holding. The parties entered into settlement agreements, but the applicant later sought to challenge these agreements, claiming that his lack of full knowledge rendered the releases of claims unenforceable.

The legal issues before the court included determining the circumstances in which a settlement between a trustee and a beneficiary could be set aside. The trial judge had found that the applicant had released the respondents from all claims through the releases. The court had to determine whether the applicant's lack of full knowledge of the circumstances of the unit trusts rendered the releases of claims unenforceable. Additionally, the enforceability of the Deed of Separation was examined, as was the issue of whether the settlement agreements were binding and final.

The court held that the applicant had indeed released the respondents from all claims through the releases. The court found that the applicant's lack of full knowledge did not render the releases of claims unenforceable. The Deed of Separation was found to be enforceable by the respondents. The applicant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court applied the principles from Bullhead Pty Ltd v Brickmakers Place Pty Ltd (In liq) [2018] VSCA 316 and Farrant v Blanchford (1863) 1 De G J & S 107; 46 ER 42 in reaching its decision. The settlement agreements were upheld as binding and final, and the applicant's claims against the respondents were dismissed.