Davies, PS;
(2017)
Interpretation and Rectification in Australia.
Cambridge Law Journal
, 76
(3)
pp. 483-486.
10.1017/S0008197317000733.
Preview |
Text
Davies_Simic CLJ note.pdf - Accepted Version Download (239kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Both interpretation and rectification continue to pose problems. Difficulties are compounded by blurring the boundary between the two. In Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2016] HCA 47, the High Court of Australia overturned the decisions of the lower courts which had held that performance bonds could be interpreted in a “loose” manner in order to correct a mistake. However, the documents could be rectified in order to reflect the actual intentions of the parties. This decision should be welcomed: the mistake was more appropriately corrected through the equitable jurisdiction than at common law. Significantly, the concurring judgments of French C.J. and Kiefel J. highlight that the law of rectification now seems to be different in Australia from the law in England. It is to be hoped that the English approach will soon be revisited (see further P. Davies, “Rectification versus Interpretation” [2016] C.L.J. 62).
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Interpretation and Rectification in Australia |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1017/S0008197317000733 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197317000733 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions. |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Laws |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10038447 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
