Legal Research
Cases
Chidiac v Maatouk

Chidiac v Maatouk

Case [2010] NSWSC 386 4 May 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Chidiac v Maatouk [2010] NSWSC 386

HEARING DATE(S): 18, 19 February 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
4 May 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Ward J

DECISION: 1. Order the first defendant pay to the plaintiff, for the benefit of the estate of the late Peter Maatouk Snr the sum of $246,540 plus interest from the date on which demand for repayment was made to date.
2. Dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against the second defendant.
3. Stand over for submissions on costs.

CATCHWORDS: LOAN - payment of money held to be made under an enforceable loan agreement between plaintiff and first defendant - first defendant ordered to repay loan amount - CONTRIBUTION - principles concerning doctrine of contribution - no right of contribution in absence of common intention between co-borrowers that second defendant be responsible for repayment - UNJUST ENRICHMENT - claims based on unjust enrichment fail - not sufficient merely to show receipt of benefit by first and second defendants - necessary to establish basis on which retention of benefit unjust - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - date of accrual of cause of action based on a debt or unjust enrichment - existence of confirmation of debt and operation of s 54 of Limitation Act - proceedings commenced within limitation period - PLEADINGS - necessary to plead factors giving rise to claim for unjust enrichment

LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Albion Insurance Co Ltd v GIO (NSW) [1969] HCA 55; (1969) 121 CLR 342
Anon, (1293) Y.B 21-22 Edw. I. (R.S.) 110-111
Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon [1993] HCA 4; (1993) 176 CLR 344; (1993) 111 ALR 289
Bhupinder Sekhon v Sharangjit Cour Sekhon [2007] NSWSC 875
BP Petroleum Development Ltd v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1987] SLT 345
Brott v Grey [2000] FCA 1727
Burke v LFOT Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 17; (2002) 209 CLR 282; (2002) 187 ALR 612
Capita Financial Group Limited v Rothwells Limited (1993) 30 NSWLR 619
Clune v Collins Angus & Robertson Publishers Pty Limited (1992) 25 IPR 246
Cockburn v GIO Finance Ltd (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 177; (2001) 51 NSWLR 624
Coshott v Lenin [2007] NSWCA 153
Coulls v Bagot’s Executor & Trustee Co Limited (1967) 119 CLR 460
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48; (1992) 175 CLR 353
Dering v Earl of Winchelsea (1787) 1 Cox 318; 29 ER 1184; [1775-1802] All ER Rep 140
Dinsdale bht Protective Commissioner v Arthur [2006] NSWSC 809; (2006) 12 BPR 23,514
Faraday v Rappaport [2007] NSWSC 34
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 230 CLR 89; (2007) 236 ALR 209
Forgeard v Shanahan (1994) 35 NSWLR 206
Gleeson v Gleeson [2002] NSWSC 418
Haller v Arye [2005] QCA 224; (2005) 2 Qd R 410
Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 810; [2008] ATPR 42-240
Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chidiac v Maatouk

Details

AGLC: Chidiac v Maatouk [2010] NSWSC 386
Case: [2010] NSWSC 386
Decision Date: 4 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chidiac v Maatouk, the plaintiff sought repayment of a loan from the first defendant, who was ordered to repay the loan amount. The plaintiff also sought contribution from the second defendant based on the doctrine of contribution, and claims based on unjust enrichment. The Federal Court of Australia was required to determine whether the first defendant was liable to repay the loan, whether the second defendant had a right of contribution, and whether the claims based on unjust enrichment were valid.

The court first held that the first defendant was liable to repay the loan as it was held to be made under an enforceable loan agreement between the parties. However, the court found that there was no right of contribution in the absence of a common intention between the co-borrowers that the second defendant be responsible for repayment. The court also found that the claims based on unjust enrichment failed as it was not sufficient to merely show receipt of benefit by the defendants, but necessary to establish the basis on which retention of the benefit was unjust. The court held that the limitation period for the proceedings had not expired as the cause of action was based on a debt or unjust enrichment, and the proceedings were commenced within the limitation period. Finally, the court held that it was necessary to plead factors giving rise to a claim for unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the first defendant to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff. The claims for contribution and unjust enrichment were dismissed. The court did not make any orders regarding costs.

Orders