Second Agreement. If so, according to the true rule of contract construction in Codelfa,1 evidence of surrounding circumstances would be admissible to assist in the interpretation of the contract. Justice Riordan accepted that the words this matter in the Second Agreement were not clear, and was prepared to consider the surrounding circumstances (but not to the extent they demonstrated subjective motivations). Ultimately, Justice Riordan found in favour of Siemens, saying that a reasonable businessperson in the position of the parties would have understood the subject matter of the Second Agreement to be the General Dispute. In making this finding, Justice Riordan confirmed that the true rule as established in Codelfa was still good law. See the Court’s decision here. End Notes 1 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [1982] HCA 24. Lucy Na Lucy is a law clerk at Building Disputes Tribunal