Corbett v Nguyen [2012] NSWSC 530

Corbett v Nguyen [2012] NSWSC 530

Clause 6 of the Deed is void for uncertainty; it is not possible to determine the intentions of the parties so as to give effect to the clause in the manner sought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim for an additional $50,000 fails. However, if clause 6 were not void, the evidence supports that the intention was only to secure a $50,000 entitlement in total, entitling the defendants to rectification.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (equity Division) / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff on part of claim; cross claim against second defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
['construction and Interpretation of Contracts' 'rectification' 'uncertainty in Contracts' 'superannuation Entitlements' 'share Transfers']
['contract Law' 'equity'] ['construction and Interpretation of Contracts' 'rectification' 'uncertainty in Contracts' 'superannuation Entitlements' 'share Transfers']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil (equity Division) / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether clause 6 of the Deed of Transfer is void for uncertainty' 'Whether plaintiff is entitled to an additional $50,000' 'Whether rectification should be ordered based on common or unilateral mistake']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 6 of the Deed is void for uncertainty; it is not possible to determine the intentions of the parties so as to give effect to the clause in the manner sought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim for an additional $50,000 fails. However, if clause 6 were not void, the evidence supports that the intention was only to secure a $50,000 entitlement in total, entitling the defendants to rectification.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff on part of claim; cross claim against second defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff entitled to $24,281.26 as agreed sum remaining due as at 30 April 2012 after $50,000 payment (to be adjusted for daily accruals).' 'Claim for an additional $50,000 dismissed.' "Cross claim against solicitor not determined as it was contingent on plaintiff's success against defendants; comment that had...