Language – Dehors

The word “dehors” is an adverb.  It is not defined in the Macquarie Dictionary.  Wiktionary (online) defines the word as:

… out of;  without;  foreign to;  out of the agreement, record, will or other instrument.

The Miriam Webster Dictionary (online) defines the word as:

… out of (as an agreement, record or will):  foreign to.

Usage of the word in jurisprudence includes the following:

• Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337:

In this ocean of litigious controversy there is one large island of agreement between the parties.  It is common ground that their contract consists of an agreement dated 21 March 1972 and the various documents which it incorporates.  The appellant does not suggest that dehors the agreement and the incorporated documents there is to be found a term actually agreed upon by the parties which together with the contract documents stands as the true contract or which stands in its own right as a collateral contract.

• Sidoti v Hardie (2021) 105 NSWLR 1 at [118]:

It will be observed that, unlike the current version, s 45D(1)(c) did not refer to limited title, but it did refer to qualified title. In respect of land under qualified title, there is a clear dichotomy between cases where “the possession by virtue of which the title to that estate or interest would have been extinguished as provided in paragraph (b) commenced after the land was brought under the provisions of this Act by the issue of the qualified certificate of title”, as referred to in s 45D(1)(c), and those where “possession commenced before the land was brought under the provisions of this Act”, as referred to in s 45C as modified by s 28P(2)(f) as amended. The former could be the subject of a possessory application under Part 6A. The latter could not, but s 45C, as so modified, did not operate to preclude the acquisition of title based on such a claim dehors Part 6A. It is clear that the intention was to preserve the position that had obtained since the introduction of the concept of qualified title, namely that qualified title was subject to possessory interests arising before the qualified title issued, including both possessory claims which had matured, and inchoate claims which were being acquired through an adverse possession which had commenced, and that such claims were to be excluded from the operation of Part 6A.

• 123 259 932 Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council (2023) 110 NSWLR 464 at [71]:

The value of the reliance interest is the quantum of the net detriment. Insofar as the plaintiff is shown to have derived some benefit from its expenditure, including benefits dehors the contract, it must give credit: thus, in Amann Aviation, credit was given for the residual value of the aircraft which Amann had purchased. But unless the value of the benefit received equals or exceeds the reliant expenditure, the difference is nonetheless wasted. This is what Deane J described as the “wasted net expenditure”. Such expenditure is regarded as “wasted” if the promise in reliance on which it was made is not performed, except to the extent that it is shown that the plaintiff has received some offsetting benefit, whether under or dehors the contract. “Wasted net expenditure” is shorthand for expenditure incurred in reliance upon a contractual promise that is not performed, to the extent it is not offset by a benefit.