{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd
[2011] HCA 45
Tags
No tags available
Case
Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd
[2011] HCA 45
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGUMMOW, HEYDON AND BELL JJWESTERN EXPORT SERVICES INC & ORS APPLICANTSANDJIREH INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD RESPONDENTWestern Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd [2011] HCA 4528 October 2011S227/2011ORDERSpecial leave to appeal refused with costs.On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South WalesRepresentationB W Walker SC with G K J Rich for the applicants (instructed by Koffels Pty Limited)R Merkel QC with T Maltz for the respondent (instructed by Meerkin & Apel Lawyers)Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDS Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty LtdPrecedents – High Court – Statements of principle binding upon intermediate appellate courts and trial courts until reconsidered by High Court.Contract law – Contractual construction – Whether essential to identify ambiguity in language of contract before court may have regard to surrounding circumstances and object of transaction. Words and phrases – "ambiguity", "binding", "High Court", "precedents". GUMMOW, HEYDON AND BELL JJ. This is an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal[1], in which Macfarlan JA gave the leading judgment. The dispute concerned the construction of cl 3 of a "Letter of Agreement" concerning the franchising in Australia of Gloria Jean's Gourmet Coffee Stores. In the passage[2] in which he found error in principle in the reasons of the primary judge, his Honour said:"A court is not justified in disregarding unambiguous language simply because the contract...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd
[2011] HCA 45
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGUMMOW, HEYDON AND BELL JJWESTERN EXPORT SERVICES INC & ORS APPLICANTSANDJIREH INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD RESPONDENTWestern Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd [2011] HCA 4528 October 2011S227/2011ORDERSpecial leave to appeal refused with costs.On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South WalesRepresentationB W Walker SC with G K J Rich for the applicants (instructed by Koffels Pty Limited)R Merkel QC with T Maltz for the respondent (instructed by Meerkin & Apel Lawyers)Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDS Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty LtdPrecedents – High Court – Statements of principle binding upon intermediate appellate courts and trial courts until reconsidered by High Court.Contract law – Contractual construction – Whether essential to identify ambiguity in language of contract before court may have regard to surrounding circumstances and object of transaction. Words and phrases – "ambiguity", "binding", "High Court", "precedents". GUMMOW, HEYDON AND BELL JJ. This is an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal[1], in which Macfarlan JA gave the leading judgment. The dispute concerned the construction of cl 3 of a "Letter of Agreement" concerning the franchising in Australia of Gloria Jean's Gourmet Coffee Stores. In the passage[2] in which he found error in principle in the reasons of the primary judge, his Honour said:"A court is not justified in disregarding unambiguous language simply because the contract...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>