Troupakis v Adams [1999] FCA 609

Troupakis v Adams [1999] FCA 609

On the construction of the written terms of settlement, paragraph 5 gave the defendants an absolute discretion in its ordinary and literal sense. The parties agreed that challenges based on alleged unfairness, unreasonableness, lack of regard to the plaintiff's interests, bad faith, dishonesty, capriciousness or ulterior purpose were shut out, so the defendants were not subject to the limitations stated in the separate question.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Concerning Construction of Terms of Settlement and an Accredited Representative Appointment / Trial of a Separate Question Pursuant to O 29 R 2(a) of the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
Separate question answered No to parts (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Legal Topics
['construction of Terms of Settlement' 'absolute Discretion' 'separate Question' 'costs']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['construction of Terms of Settlement' 'absolute Discretion' 'separate Question' 'costs']

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 Proceeding Concerning Construction of Terms of Settlement and an Accredited Representative Appointment / Trial of a Separate Question Pursuant to O 29 R 2(a) of the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, in exercising the absolute discretion conferred by paragraph 5 of the terms of settlement, the defendants were required to act fairly and reasonably.' 'Whether the defendants were required to have due regard to the interests of the plaintiff.' 'Whether the defendants were required to act in good faith and honestly.' 'Whether the defendants were required to refrain from acting capriciously or for an ulterior purpose.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the construction of the written terms of settlement, paragraph 5 gave the defendants an absolute discretion in its ordinary and literal sense. The parties agreed that challenges based on alleged unfairness, unreasonableness, lack of regard to the plaintiff's interests, bad faith, dishonesty, capriciousness or ulterior purpose were shut out, so the defendants were not subject to the limitations stated in the separate question.

Court Disposition

Separate question answered No to parts (a), (b), (c) and (d).

Orders

  • ['Answer the question "In exercising the absolute discretion conferred upon the defendants pursuant to paragraph 5 of the terms of settlement referred to in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim, were the defendants required to (a) act fairly and reasonably; (b) have due regard to the interests of the plaintiff; (c)...