Question (2): As to annexure "G" in the paragraph commencing "Deduct from Shan's 49%", do the words "company" in the first line and in subparagraph (1) and "company's" in subparagraph (4) refer to the first plaintiff or the first defendant?
10 This question is not really relevant. I simply note that the parties have agreed that insofar as annexure "G" may be relevant, in the paragraph commencing "Deduct from Shan's 49%", the words "company" in the first line and in subparagraph (1), and "company's" in subparagraph (4), refer to the company known as Ginger Development Enterprises Pty Limited.
Question (3): As to annexure "H", whether subparagraph 2(10) means advance payments to either of the plaintiffs are to be deducted in calculating the profits of the two projects referred to in the annexures or the 49% share of the profits going to the plaintiffs?
11 The defendants submit that the fundamental overall agreement between the parties suggests that this item is to come out of Shan Ruan's 49% share of the profits. The defendants rely upon a conversation held between Shan Ruan and Yau Fong Yuen. It is not clear when the conversation occurred but, according to the evidence, I infer that it occurred in about March or April 1998, in which Mr Yuen said words to the effect:
You can deduct ten percent off the construction costs to use for the administration costs in running your office but don't forget this will come out of your forty nine percent share of the profits .
12 The defendants point to the fact that these advance payments are dealt with in paragraph 3 of annexure "H"; that is, paragraph 2(10) is absent from annexure "G". It is submitted that the fundamental overall agreement suggests the advance payments to Shan Ruan or to her private company are to come out of her 49% share of the profits.
13 I must admit that I had some difficulty in resolving this question. However, I am inclined to agree with the former contention. Advance payments to either of the plaintiffs are to be deducted in calculating the total profits of the two projects referred to in the annexures. These payments are not to be deducted from the 49% share of the profits going to the plaintiffs. The reason for this is that subparagraph 2(10) seems to have been deliberately inserted into the document. It was not present in the previous document and it is a document which, as I have said, is or forms at least part of the agreement between the parties. This view is reinforced by the fact that such an interpretation is admitted in the pleadings. That is, the plaintiff has alleged an agreement between the parties which includes a term along the lines in paragraph 2(10) of annexure "H" and that has been admitted by the defendant.
Question (4): As to annexure "H" clause 1, does that mean that the future profits derived from the two projects taken together are to be ascertained and paid separately as to each project without reference to any profit or loss made on the other project?
14 As I understand it, the issue is this: are profits to be calculated on the completion of a project; that is, the profit must be determined at completion and sale of each project and the profits then distributed and determined on a project by project basis; or are they all to be lumped in together?
15 Again, I am able to resolve this by a simple process of construction. The parties apparently envisaged only two projects. This appears from paragraph 1 of annexure "H". That is to say, only two projects were to be entered into by them. Paragraph 1 of annexure "H" expressly states:
The apportionment of the future profits derived from the two projects by Ginger, Arden St and Crown St, are to be apportioned in the manner described (emphasis added).
16 The agreement was only to operate for the purpose of developing the two projects as identified. The two projects are those projects contemplated by the agreement and they are to be taken together for the purpose of calculating the overall profit, or loss, as the case may be.
Question (5): Whether any of those annexures permit the payment to either of the plaintiffs of $10,000 on account of each tender received in respect of the Crown Street property?
17 I note that the parties are agreed that this question should be answered "no".
18 As to the further conduct of the proceedings, I make the directions by consent set out in the short minutes of order. I grant liberty to apply on two days notice. I also reserve the question of costs.