The Court of Appeal held that a deed of release incorporating an employer's commission policy by reference, with two express variations, did not displace the policy's requirement that commission was payable only when the client paid the invoice; the express exclusion of late payment reductions for two identified invoices indicated the parties understood the policy otherwise applied in full. On the Westfield deal, the Court held the primary judge erred in treating a lease between the same parties introduced by the appellant as a 'different transaction' merely because negotiations broke down and were later reopened. On the Sumo Salad deal, the Court held that where a party has sought production of documents by compulsive process and not challenged the adequacy of production, the absence of evidence of an invoice being issued or paid is evidence of absence, and the [name withheld] v [name withheld] principle has no role to play — the burden of proof remained undischarged.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.