The objective theory of contract requires consideration of what a reasonable person in the circumstances would have made of the conduct of a party when determining contractual intention.

The meaning of the terms of a contract is to be determined by what a reasonable person would have understood them to mean. That normally requires consideration of the text of the contract, the surrounding circumstances known to the parties and the purpose and object of the transaction.

An accord and satisfaction extinguishes the existing cause of action and replaces it with a new cause of action based on the agreement. A valid accord and satisfaction is not a discretionary factor; it is a complete answer to a claim. As it is a complete answer, there is no reason why it could not be raised at a preliminary stage under s.587.

A valid and effective accord and satisfaction extinguishes the pre-existing cause of action, and continued pursuit of an application based on such cause of action is clearly capable of being considered frivolous or vexatious or without reasonable prospects of success.

The existence of a binding settlement or accord and satisfaction extinguishes the existing cause of action and replaces it with a new cause of action based on the agreement.

An accord and satisfaction is a complete answer to a claim; a valid and effective accord and satisfaction extinguishes the pre-existing cause of action and continued pursuit of an application based on such cause of action is clearly capable of being considered frivolous or vexatious or without reasonable prospects of success.

Any findings made by the AIRC concerning contractual rights, meaning of industrial instruments, or lawfulness of dismissal are merely opinions as steps towards determining future rights; they do not constitute binding judicial determinations and cannot give rise to issue estoppel.

Where a tribunal is invested with special jurisdiction to decide one class of matter, findings on matters collateral to that jurisdiction create no estoppel unless the statute expressly confers jurisdiction to determine those collateral matters conclusively and for all purposes.

The only matter committed to AIRC decision-making for finality purposes is whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; findings made in reasoning towards that ultimate decision give rise to no issue estoppel.

An agreement to settle and compromise legal proceedings is a contract binding the parties. The general principle is that the subject matter of a dispute compromised in a settlement agreement may not be raised again in later legal proceedings, subject to vitiating factors such as duress.

A party seeking to set aside a settlement agreement on grounds of duress must establish illegitimate pressure, usually in form of a threat, coupled with demand, which left the party no reasonable alternative but to agree, and which operated as cause of entry into the agreement.

Where parties have reached a settlement in relation to the same subject matter giving rise to a dispute, it is not in the public interest to proceed to hear the matter.