NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Whiteley v Hodge [2000] NSWSC 866 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2051/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 23 & 24 August 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 24 August 2000
PARTIES : Mely Meia Whiteley (P) Russell John Hodge (D) JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J
COUNSEL : T A Kolomyjec (P) A K Ottesen (D) SOLICITORS : Virginia Odtojan & Associates (P) Owen Hodge Lawyers (D) CATCHWORDS : CONTRACTS [120] - General contractual principles - Construction and interpretation of contracts - Other matters - Admissibility of extrinsic evidence - Parol evidence rule - Ambiguity exception - Ambiguity of word "sale" resolved with aid of extrinsic evidence. LEGISLATION CITED : Conveyancing Act 1919 s 163F(2) Supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 31 r 2 Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 CASES CITED : Darin Nominees Pty Ltd v Franklin's Self Serve Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 209 Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381 Riordan Smith Line v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989 DECISION : Questions as to interpretation of mortgage answered.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
HAMILTON J
THURSDAY, 24 AUGUST 2000
2051/00 MELY MEIA WHITELEY v RUSSEL JOHN HODGE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE GWENDOLINE DAISY WHITELEY
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: 1 In these proceedings I have ordered under Part 31 r 2 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 that the following questions be determined separately from and before any other questions in these proceedings:
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate