| Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Decided | 11 May 1982 |
| Citations | [1982] HCA 24, (1982) 149 CLR 337 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | New South Wales Court of Appeal |
| Subsequent actions | [1982] HCA 51, (1982) 150 CLR 29 |
| Case opinions | |
| (5:0) There was no implied term dealing with restraint by injunction (4:1) The contract was frustrated because of the injunction (Brennan J dissenting) | |
| Majority | Mason, Stephen, Aickin & Wilson JJ |
| Concur/dissent | Brennan J |
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales,[1] ("Codelfa") is a widely cited Australian contract law case,[2] which serves as authority for the modern approach to contractual construction.[3] The case greatly influenced the development of the Eastern Suburbs railway line. In terms of contract law, the case addresses questions of frustration, construction and the parol evidence rule. The case diverged from the well established English approach regarding the use of extrinsic evidence in contractual interpretation.[4][5]
- ^ Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24, (1982) 149 CLR 337 (11 May 1982), High Court.
- ^ Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW LawCite search
- ^ McLauchlan, David, The Contract that Neither Party Intends (2012) 29 Journal of Contract Law 26 SSRN 2112116
- ^ Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28, [1998] 1 All ER 98, House of Lords (UK).
- ^ Catterwell, Ryan, The "indirect" Use of Evidence of Prior Negotiations and the Parties' Intentions in Contractual Construction: Part of the Surrounding Circumstances (2012) 29 Journal of Contract Law 183.