Legal Research
Cases
Zreika v QBE Workers Compensation

Zreika v QBE Workers Compensation

Case [2005] NSWSC 573 17 June 2005

Contract Formation

Implied Terms

Unconscionable Conduct

Uncertainty and Incompleteness of Contract

Contract Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Zreika v QBE Workers Compensation [2005] NSWSC 573

HEARING DATE(S): 13 May 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

17 June 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Burchett AJ at 1

DECISION:
Settlement agreement held complete, certain and enforceable. Orders to be made with costs pursuant to short minutes to be brought in

CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACT - contract of settlement of worker's compensation proceeding - whether contract was incomplete or uncertain, or lacked intention to be bound, where settlement required execution of Terms, Release, Admissions and Agreed Facts which had not been settled - whether it could be implied that defendants' solicitors would draft documents to contain no unreasonable demands on the plaintiff, forms called "settlement packs" used by the defendant being in existence - principles relating to uncertainty and incompleteness of contract - circumstances in which an apparently incomplete term could be read as implying a provision of reasonableness so as to give it sufficient clarity of meaning - effect on agreement to settle section of worker's compensation legislation forbidding contracting out

LEGISLATION CITED:
Workers Compensation (General) Regulation 1995, reg 82
Carter and Harland, Contract Law in Australia, (4th ed, 2002) at sec 258
Cheshire and Fifoot's Law of Contract (8th Australian ed., 2002) at secs. 6.5 - 6.6

CASES CITED:
Anaconda Nickel Ltd v Tarmoola Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 22 WAR 101
Art Coating Pty Ltd v Gerace [2000] NSWCA 169
Ashenden v Stewarts & Lloyds (Australia) Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 484
Australian Iron & Steel Pty Limited v McAuley (Court of Appeal, unreported, Kirby P, Mahoney and Priestley JJA, 21 December 1984)
Booker Industries Proprietary Limited v Wilson Parking (Qld) Proprietary Limited (1982) 149 CLR 600
Greater London Council v Connolly [1970] 2 QB 100
Hammond v Vam Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 1
In Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon (the "Mikhail Lermontov") (1991) 22 NSWLR 1
Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749
Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571
The Council of the Upper Hunter County & District v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Limited (1968) 118 CLR 429
The Council of the Upper Hunter County District v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Limited at 436-437
Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (1992) 27 NSWLR 326

PARTIES:
Jadwat Zreika (Plaintiff)
QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (First Defendant)
Lynch Warehousing Pty Limited trading as Lynch Flowers Pty Limited (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 4222 of 2004

COUNSEL:
Mr R Royle (Plaintiff)
Mr J M Harris (Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Gergis Solicitors (Plaintiff)
In House Legal Department QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (Defendants)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 15 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BURCHETT AJ

FRIDAY 17 JUNE 2005

4222/04 JAWDAT ZREIKA V QBE WORKERS COMPENSATION (NSW) LIMITED and LYNCH WAREHOUSING PTY LIMITED trading as LYNCH FLOWERS PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 When the Roman general, Marcus Regulus, was defeated and captured in the First Punic War, the Carthaginians released him on parole to return to…

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 Zreika v QBE Workers Compensation

Details

AGLC: Zreika v QBE Workers Compensation [2005] NSWSC 573
Case: [2005] NSWSC 573
Decision Date: 17 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zreika v QBE Workers Compensation involved the parties' dispute over the validity of a contract of settlement in worker's compensation proceedings. The court had to determine whether the contract was incomplete, uncertain, or lacked the intention to be bound, particularly as it required the execution of Terms, Release, Admissions and Agreed Facts that had not been settled. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the contract could be considered incomplete or uncertain, and whether it could be implied that the defendants' solicitors would draft documents containing no unreasonable demands on the plaintiff. The court also had to consider the principles relating to uncertainty and incompleteness of a contract, and the circumstances in which an apparently incomplete term could be read as implying a provision of reasonableness so as to give it sufficient clarity of meaning. Additionally, the court needed to examine the effect on the agreement to settle of section 152 of the Worker's Compensation Act 1958 (Vic), which forbids contracting out.

The court found that the contract of settlement was incomplete as it required the execution of Terms, Release, Admissions and Agreed Facts that had not been settled. However, the court did not consider the contract to be uncertain, as the parties' intention to be bound was clear. The court also found that it could be implied that the defendants' solicitors would draft documents containing no unreasonable demands on the plaintiff, as "settlement packs" used by the defendant were in existence and contained a clause which stated that the parties would not include unreasonable demands in the contract. The court held that this implied clause gave the contract sufficient clarity of meaning. Finally, the court determined that the agreement to settle was not affected by section 152 of the Worker's Compensation Act 1958 (Vic), as the section only applied to the terms of the settlement, not the process of reaching a settlement.

The court ordered that the contract of settlement be enforced, and that the parties proceed to execute the Terms, Release, Admissions and Agreed Facts in accordance with the court's findings. The court also ordered that the defendants' solicitors draft the documents containing no unreasonable demands on the plaintiff, in accordance with the terms of the settlement packs used by the defendant.

Orders