Kempe v Grine

[2025] NSWDC 227

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Kempe v Grine [2025] NSWDC 227

Hearing dates:

2 – 4 June and 13 June 2025

Date of orders:

23 June 2025

Decision date:

23 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Gibson DCJ

Decision:

Orders

(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $593,666.21.

(2)   Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs.

(3)   Liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs.

Catchwords:

CONTRACT – loan of $300,000 by the plaintiff to the defendant – whether money advanced was a loan or a gift – whether the terms of the contract were varied – quantum – no issue of principle

Cases Cited:

Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153

Douglas v Mickhael & Ors [2023] NSWSC 979

E1 v E2; E Pty Limited v E2 [2023] NSWDC 411

Esanda Finance Corporation Limited v Atanasivska [2014] NSWDC 169

Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd v Ultimate Franchising Group Pty Ltd (Final Hearing) [2023] FCA 420

New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Diab [2015] NSWCA 133

PRA Electrical Pty Ltd v Perseverance Exploration Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 310; 20 VR 487

W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd v Laureen Margaret Mayo [2013] NSWSC 1063

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Plaintiff:
Ms Bridget Anne Kempe

Defendant:
Ms Rosa Grine

Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff:
Mr G McGrath

Defendant:
Self-represented

Solicitor:
Plaintiff: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

File Number(s):

2024/00263563

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

The claim before the court

1. By statement of claim filed on 17 July 2024, the plaintiff brings proceedings for recovery of a loan in the sum of $300,000 which she made to the defendant on or about 2 December 2018, together with interest at the rate of 20%, this being the rate of interest stipulated in the contract drafted by the defendant’s accountant, Mr Cyril Quek.

2. The defendant denies that any money is due or owing or alternatively says that she should only be ordered to pay $176,091.80.

3. The claim is notable for the lack of documentation provided by the defendant for the variations she asserted were made to this contract. The plaintiff says she signed a loan agreement which was identical to a draft document emailed to her earlier on the day it was signed (2 December 2018). It was never put to her that any other contractual document was shown to her, let alone signed. The defendant denies the contract was ever signed or even agreed to but cannot produce documentation in support of her claim of a gift or a variation or a new contract. She says that most of her documentary evidence (including banking records) was destroyed in a house fire on 21 October 2021. The defendant’s two accountants claim never to have seen the document identified by the plaintiff as the loan agreement and claim that an oral account of its contents was given to them by Mr Cyril Quek, the accountant who prepared the agreement. The solicitor, Ms McAllister, was not called.

The parties enter into a…