Yet another reminder to take care during settlement negotiations!
In the case of Buildum Construction Pty Ltd v Pile & Bucket Pty Ltd  NSWSC 1260, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (the Court) considered whether an oral agreement reached between the parties at settlement fell within the the first or second category of Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 (Masters v Cameron).
The proceedings arose out of a claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) where the Defendant, Pile & Bucket Pty Ltd (Pile and Bucket) obtained an adjudication determination against plaintiff, Buildum Construction Pty Ltd (Buildum) which was subsequently registered as a judgment in the Local Court of New South Wales.
Following Buildum commencing proceedings in the Court seeking orders to set the adjudication determination aside, the parties engaged in a settlement conference. At the conclusion of the settlement conference, the parties exchanged draft unsigned deeds though issues arose in connection with the terms of settlement after the conference with Pile and Bucket disputing that any binding or enforceable agreement was ever reached.
On return to the Court, Buildum put forward the following arguments, based on the oft-cited classification system in Masters v Cameron in support of their position:
- that the parties agreed on all the essential terms of the bargain, with a formal deed to be drawn up to give effect to those terms; or alternatively; and
- that the parties agreed to be bound to the terms reached at the settlement conference, albeit that enforceability of those terms were conditional upon the execution of a deed.
Pile and Bucket contended that the events which occurred at the settlement conference fell within the scope of the third category of Masters v Cameron, namely that the parties had agreed that they would not be bound unless a deed was entered into.
The Court considered the various affidavits from the parties present at the settlement conference and noted that whilst the affidavits paraphrased the oral statements made at the settlement conference, there was no clear evidence in direct speech of exactly what happened. The most useful evidence was a statement made by the solicitor for Buildum deposing to an oral offer being put forward by Pile and Bucket.
Ultimately, the Court held that the parties had agreed on a settlement figure and other key terms during the settlement conference and the issues in contention regarding the terms of the settlement were are too small to be regarded as essential therefore Pile and Bucket’s failure to agree these non-essential terms was not a defence to Buildum’s application.
This case serves as a timely reminder that any agreement reached at a settlement conference or mediation should be recorded and executed accurately to avoid complications that can arise later.
For more information, please contact ERA Legal.
- Litigation Funding: What the court will consider when determining an application under section 477(2B)
- PPSA: when the grantor registers a security interest...over itself
- Unfair Contracts regime enforced by Federal Court
- PPSA - the 20 business day rule: when will the court grant an extension of time to register?
- Voidable transactions - the one who got delay
- Service by post - but I didn't receive that letter?
- Would the real Applicant please wind-up! – Standing under s 459P of the Corporations Act
- The Australian Financial Complaints Authority - accrual proposal? Or a one-stop shop that makes cents?
- Financial agreements: undue influence, unconscionable dealings and duress
- Be transparent or pay the price