Icon Office Solutions Aust Pty Ltd v Hughes

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Icon Office Solutions Aust Pty Ltd v Hughes [2024] QMC 13

PARTIES:

Icon Office Solutions Aust Pty Ltd

(Plaintiff)

v

Richard Hughes

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1824/21

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

02/08/2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11/09/2023

MAGISTRATE:

J. Pinder

ORDER:

Judgement

I give judgement for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $50,000.

Interest and Costs

In the event that the parties are unable to agree the amount of interest payable on the judgement debt and costs I direct the parties to file and serve written outlines in respect of interest (including calculations) and costs to be no more than five typed A4 pages of length within 10 days.

CATCHWORDS:

Loan Agreement

Personal Loan - Repayable on demand

-     (See Douglas v Mikhael (2023) NSW CS 979

-     Argyll Park Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd v Glen Pacific Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 1)

SOLICITORS:

Plaintiff

-     Counsel - Mr J.Penrose

-     Solicitors – Hopgood Gani

Defendant

-     Appeared pro se

Introduction

1. The plaintiff brings suit claiming the sum of $50,000 and interest and costs.

1. The plaintiff claims that these monies are due and owing pursuant to a loan agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant, in or about the late March 2020 the terms of which provided that the loaned monies were repayable by the defendant upon demand.

1. The defendant says that there was no loan agreement between the parties and that money’s paid by the plaintiff were paid to Sales House Pty Ltd, pursuant to an agreement between the plaintiff and Sales House and constituted an advance against commissions.

The Pleadings

1. The plaintiff at the commencement of the trial was given leave, without opposition, to amend its statement of claim in paragraph (4) (a date amended to 03/09/2024).

1. The amendment related solely to paragraph 4 of statement of claim, which the defendant had in any event denied such that there was no consequential requirement for an amendment of the defence. 

1. The pleadings in the action are:- 

·     Amended statement of claim dated 11 September 2023.

·     Amended defence dated 8 November 2021.

·     Reply dated 22 November 2021.

1. The pleadings define the issues in dispute as follows:-

The defendant denies that:-

·     The parties entered into a loan agreement in or about late March 2020.

·     The terms of the loan agreement were that the plaintiff would advance loaned monies from time to time upon request of the defendant.

·     That the plaintiff made payments to the defendant under the loan agreement, in a total of $50,000 being as follows:-

o   24 March 2020 $10,000 by payments of $10,000 each on the 24 March 2020, 24 April 2020, 20 June 2020, 6 August 2020 and 30 September 2020.

·     That any money’s borrowed pursuant to the loan agreement were repayable buy the defendant to the plaintiff upon demand.

1. The defendant alleges that:- 

·     An amount of $50,000 was paid by the plaintiff to…