Because this was illegal, the Court set aside the deed. The Court found that it was executed in exchange for the defendant’s agreement to discontinue criminal proceedings. Moreover, in the case of The State of New South Wales v Pyne NSWCA 58, the Court set aside a deed of release also due to an illegal consideration. The Court determined that the deed was signed in exchange for the defendant not pursuing a workers’ compensation claim against the plaintiff, which was illegal under the Workers Compensation Act of 1987. In Pearson v State of New South Wales NSWCA 31, the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that a deed of release was unenforceable because it was given in exchange for an illegal consideration. One example is a deed that relieves a person of an obligation to pay child support or comply with environmental regulations. Illegality can cause a deed of release to be set asideĪ deed of release is unenforceable if it is illegal or if it runs counter to public policy.Ī deed that releases a person from their obligations under a statute would be unenforceable if it is prohibited by the statute. For this reason, the Court agreed to set aside the deed. That is unless the defendant executed a deed of release. The defendant falsely represented the amount of money the plaintiff would receive for signing the deed.įurther, in Mitchell v Raza NSWCA 240, the Court found that the plaintiff had threatened to terminate the defendant’s employment. The Court found that the defendant made false representations to the plaintiff. This was because it was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation. The Queensland Court of Appeal ruled in Eales v Waller QCA 405 that a deed of release was unenforceable. Fraud happens when one party intentionally misleads the other party in order to get them to sign the document.įor instance, the other party may be able to claim that the deed is invalid if the first party misrepresents the nature or scope of the dispute. Void on the ground of fraud or misrepresentationĪ deed of release may be set aside if it was acquired through deceit or fraud. The Court determined that the plaintiff used undue influence over the defendant by threatening to cancel the sale of a property unless the defendant signed it. This is because the signature was obtained through undue influence. In McPhie v McPhie HCA 12, the High Court of Australia ruled that a deed of release was unenforceable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |