Disputing the meaning of words in contractual clauses
Can a 'house' be taken to mean a block of flats? That's what a court had to contend with recently
Land disputes are very often about the interpretation of the words used in a lease or some other document. Dealings with land are based on the bargain struck between two parties, such as a buyer and seller or a landlord and tenant. The parties have to spell out the terms of their agreement.
Lawyers have to be able to understand, think through and then express what the parties have in mind. That is a large part of what they are paid for.
But no matter how well these tasks are performed, there will still be room for dispute as to what the parties had in mind.
The fact that a long time may elapse between the agreement and the dispute can make things more difficult. The courts may then be called on to interpret the words used by the parties, perhaps decades ago.
In a case between Fully Profit (Asia) and the Secretary for Justice, the Court of Final Appeal recently had to resolve just such a dispute. The question was whether the word "house" can include a block of flats.
Fully Profit, a developer, had bought several neighbouring plots of land, each of which was the subject of a separate government lease. Each lease contained a promise that not more than one house would be built on it.
The developer wanted to tear down five houses already on the land and build a single residential block that would straddle the plots. Would this amount to a breach of the promise not to build more than one "house"?