Australia: Uncertainty about ambiguity: The approach to contractual construction remains in dispute across Australia

Since 2011, when the High Court refused an application for special leave in Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International,1 there has been dispute among Australian courts as to the correct approach the courts should take when receiving evidence for the purpose of interpreting commercial contracts. The dispute relates to whether or not, when interpreting a contract, a court needs to find ambiguity in the text of the contract before it can consider the surrounding circumstances known at the time of entry into the contract. The High Court's refusal, in March 2015, to grant special leave to appeal from the Western Australia Court of Appeal's decision in Technomin v Xstrata Nickel suggests that we will have no resolution on this issue for a while yet.

Certainty in the interpretation of written contracts is something which is fundamentally desirable for all businesses. Despite that, in recent years certain aspects of this part of Australian law have been described by some commentators as being in a state of disarray. One of the principal controversies has been whether it is necessary to find ambiguity in the text of a contract, before a court is permitted to take into account, for the purpose of construction of the contract's terms, the surrounding circumstances known to the parties at the time of entry into the contract.

In 1982, in Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW), Mason J of the High Court stated that the true rule is that:2

"evidence of surrounding circumstances is admissible to assist in the interpretation of the contract if the language is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning. But it is not admissible to contradict the language of the contract when it has a plain meaning".

This statement of the 'true rule' was generally understood as requiring ambiguity to be found in the text of a contract before the surrounding circumstances of the contract could be taken into account. However, later decisions of the High Court and intermediate courts suggested that it was unnecessary to find ambiguity before it is permissible to have regard to surrounding circumstances.3

As time passed, those later decisions appeared to settle the legal principles that governed the approach to interpretation of contracts in Australia.

However, that situation changed in 2011, when the High Court refused special leave to appeal in the case of Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd.4 The High Court took the unusual step of publishing written reasons for the refusal to grant special leave. In those reasons, Gummow, Heydon and Bell JJ stated that intermediate (appellate) courts were bound to follow the precedent in Codelfa, unless and until the High Court reconsidered the 'true rule', and disapproved or revised what was said in Codelfa.

The decision in Jireh created what McLure P called a 'heated controversy'.5 One of the reasons it created such controversy is that, until special leave is granted, there is no proceeding before the High Court.6 Given Jireh was a refusal of special leave, there was a real question as to its precedential authority because the decision was not the ratio decidendi of a final decision in a proceeding.7

In 2014, the High Court had an opportunity to resolve this controversy when it heard an appeal dealing with a commercial contract in Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd.8Unfortunately the decision in that case has been the subject of strident criticism,9 and did not provide a resolution at all.

In Woodside, the majority stated that:10

The meaning of the terms of a commercial contract is to be determined by what a reasonable businessperson would have understood those terms to mean ... it will require consideration of the language used by the parties, the surrounding circumstances known to them and the commercial purpose or objects to be secured by the contract.

By stating that the surrounding circumstances must be considered, the majority of the Court in Woodside seemed to be suggesting that it is not necessary to find an ambiguity in the text of a contract before a court can consider the surrounding circumstances. However, when making the statement, the majority did not refer either to Codelfa or Jireh. Unfortunately this has left it unclear whether the Court was intending to disapprove or revise the 'true rule'.

In turn this has led to conflicting decisions of intermediate courts on that question.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal, in its decision in Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA, expressed the view that the High Court in Woodside:11

"confirms that not only will the language used "require consideration" but so too will the surrounding circumstances and the commercial purpose or objects. ... It cannot be that the mandatory words "will require consideration" used by four Justices of the High Court were chosen lightly, or should be "understood as being some incautious or inaccurate use of language".

In other words, the Court formed the view that Woodside had revised the true rule set down in Codelfa. The decision in Mainteck has been followed by the Full Court of the Federal Court12 and in another decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal.13

However, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has formed a different view. In Technomin Australia Pty Ltd v Xstrata Nickel Australia Operations14the respondents argued before that court that Woodside confirmed the abandonment of any requirement that the language of the contract be ambiguous before regard could be had to surrounding circumstances.

The Court rejected that argument. It pointed to the fact that the majority in Woodside had not addressed Jireh, and had not identified whether the relevant contract was ambiguous. Accordingly, McLure P found that, until the High Court expressly held differently, ambiguity remains a gateway requirement before surrounding circumstances can be considered.

In a separate judgment, Murphy JA considered it unnecessary to resolve this issue because there was an ambiguity in the contract. Despite that, his Honour went on to consider the principles of construction. His Honour expressed the view that there was nothing in the decisions of the High Court since Codelfa which was inconsistent with ambiguity being a gateway requirement before surrounding circumstances could be used as an aid to interpretation.

In his judgment, Murphy JA referred to the decision in Mainteck but noted that submissions on it were not received because the decision was handed down after the hearing of the appeal in Technomin. Having said that, his Honour doubted the correctness of the decision in Mainteck stating that:15

  • the 'true rule' passage in Codelfa had not been expressly considered by the High Court since 2002;16
  • the authorities up to the time of Woodside are not necessarily inconsistent with a requirement of ambiguity, which is significant given that the majority in Woodside stated they were reaffirming earlier decisions;
  • a case as significant as Codelfa is unlikely to have been impliedly overruled; and
  • the question of whether evidence of surrounding circumstances is inadmissible in the absence of ambiguity did not appear to have been canvassed in argument in Woodside, nor isolated for determination.

The Victorian Court of Appeal has, to date, only briefly considered the implications of the decision in Woodside. The decision of that court in State of Victoria v Tatts Group Ltd17 suggests that Victorian courts will require ambiguity to be found in the meaning of the written text before consideration may be given to surrounding circumstances to interpret the contract.

The conflicting decisions regarding the effect of the High Court's decision in Woodside have left this issue in a state of confusion. That the law in Australia is in such a position, particularly in an area as critical to business as contractual construction, is most unfortunate.

In March 2015, the High Court had another chance to provide some much needed clarity, when Technomin Australia Pty Ltd sought special leave to appeal from the decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal. One of the grounds on which special leave was sought was that an appeal would provide an opportunity for the High Court to resolve the dispute between the intermediate courts as to the correct approach to contractual construction. But the High Court refused the application for special leave.

Where this leaves us is that similar factual scenarios in Australia could result in different decisions, depending on the jurisdiction in which litigation takes place. While clarity can only be brought to this issue by the High Court, it does not presently look like that clarity will be provided in a hurry.

Footnotes

1 [2011] HCA 45

2 (1982) 149 CLR 337 at 352.

3 See, for example, Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603.

4(2011) 282 ALR 604.

5 Cape Lambert Resources Ltd v MCC Australia Sanjin Mining Pty Ltd (2013)298 ALR 666 at [107].

6Collins v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 120 at 122.

7K Lindgren, "The ambiguity of 'ambiguity' in the construction of contracts" (2014) 38 Aust Bar Rev 153.

8 (2014) 251 CLR 640.

9 See JW Carter, W Courtney and G Tolhurst, "'Reasonable endeavours in contract construction" (2014) 32 JCL 36.

10 (2014) 251 CLR 640 at [35].

11 (2014) 310 ALR 113 at [71].

12 Stratton Finance Pty Ltd v Webb (2014) 314 ALR 166.

13 Newey v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] NSWCA 319.

14 [2014] AWSCA 164.

15 [2014] WASCA 164 at [215].

16In Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 240 CLR 45.

17 [2014] VSCA 311.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Most awarded firm and Australian deal of the year
Australasian Legal Business Awards
Employer of Choice for Women
Equal Opportunity for Women
in the Workplace (EOWA)

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions