Norman Waterhouse

Normans Briefly

In this issue

Welcome to the January edition of the Normans Briefly.

>   Norman Waterhouse Welcomes Kale Rigano
>   State Government Back Flips on Abolition of all Non-Realty Stamp Duty
>   Check your contracts! Do they actually reflect your agreement?

Norman Waterhouse Welcomes Kale Rigano

Norman Waterhouse Lawyers has appointed Kale Rigano as a new Tax Partner to its Corporate and Commercial team.

Kale joins Norman Waterhouse after operating his own firm, Rigano Clayton Lawyers.  Kale has worked with some of the leading tax specialists in South Australia and has considerable corporate and tax experience.

Kale advises clients in relation to state, federal and international tax jurisdictions over a diverse range of industries and across a broad array of tax profiles including high net worth individuals, small to medium enterprises and clients with complex asset structures.

Kale’s practice also includes providing advice on business structuring, superannuation and estate and succession planning.  He focuses on achieving the best result without losing focus of the commercial needs of his clients.

He specialises in conducting taxation disputes using conventional methods and alternative dispute resolution, and has been successful in every matter he has managed.

Kale is a member of the Taxation Institute of Australia and is actively involved in contributing to the association and its objectives.  He also holds a Master’s Degree in Taxation.

State Government Back Flips on Abolition of all Non-Realty Stamp Duty

On Friday, 16 December 2011, RevenueSA released a circular advising that the state government’s intention to abolish stamp duty on non-realty conveyances had been delayed for 12 months.

As part of the 2011-2012 mid-year budget review released by the treasurer, the government has confirmed that it will delay the abolition of stamp duty on non-realty conveyances until 1 July 2013.
It may be beneficial for clients who were delaying transactions until 1 July 2012 to now consider alternate options which may effect a practical transfer of assets prior to July 2013.

Attached is a link to the relevant information circular released from RevenueSA.

Information Circular 34

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Kale Rigano (8210 1207 or or Tom Walrut (8210 1218 or

article image

Check your contracts! Do they actually reflect your agreement?

The High Court of Australia recently re-affirmed the importance for contracts to accurately contain the terms that each party involved understands their agreement to be.

The High Court refused an application for special leave to appeal by Western Export Services Inc (Western) against the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal concerning the interpretation of a contract it had with Jireh International Pty Ltd (Jireh).

The original dispute between the parties arose because there was a disagreement about the interpretation of a contract between them.

Western argued in its appeal to the High Court that the Court of Appeal should have had “regard to the surrounding circumstances and object of the transaction”, rather than confining the examination only to the expressed terms of the contract.  The High Court rejected this submission and re-affirmed the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

Broadly speaking, it is the case that parties will be bound by the terms of their written contracts and not by their understanding of what they intended the contract to provide for, even if that understanding is shared between the parties.  This means that if a written contract contains terms which are contrary to what the parties intended, the parties will still be bound by those terms.

This case therefore serves as a timely reminder that:

  • where there is a material change in a contractual relationship or a departure from what was originally agreed, serious consideration should be given as to whether the contract should be formally varied in writing or a new contract executed;
  • it is far better to be proactive and ensure a contract is formally varied in writing, or a new contract executed, rather than trying to persuade a judge that a contract should not be interpreted as it plainly reads, but rather as the parties understood or intended it to read.

You should therefore:

  • before signing any new contracts, carefully consider whether the terms accurately reflect your understanding and intention.  In doing so, you will need to consider how a reasonable person would interpret the terms of your contracts, as this is the test that the Court will apply;
  • ensure that all new contracts contain all agreed terms, not just core terms; and
  • conduct regular contract audits to ensure that your contracts continue to accurately reflect the parties understanding and intention.

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Tom Pledge 8210 1262 or

© Norman Waterhouse 2011. All Rights Reserved. You may not reproduce all or any part of this newsletter without our prior consent.
We respect your right to privacy. You can view our Privacy Information Notice on our website and our Privacy Policy is available
on request from our Privacy Officer at
The contents of this newsletter are for information only and
should not be taken as advice on the law


Forward this issue

Do you know someone who might be interested in receiving this monthly newsletter?



You're receiving this newsletter because you signed up on the Norman Waterhouse website.


Contact us

Level 15, 45 Pirie St
Adelaide SA 5000
+ 61 8 8210 1200

You're receiving this newsletter because you signed up at
Having trouble reading this email? View it in your browser. Not interested anymore? Unsubscribe Instantly.