McKechnie v Gameson - [2000] NTSC 39

McKechnie v Gameson [2000] NTSC 39
PARTIES:McKECHNIE, Robert Lachlan
v

GAMESON, Anthony McDougal

And

GAMESON, Susan

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:16 of 1991
DELIVERED:  9 June 2000
HEARING DATES:  21, 22 & 23 March 2000, 5 April 2000, 5 May 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:

MONEY
Monies lent – whether personal loan – whether loan to agents of a company
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
General – whether to grant extension of time to institute the action
Limitation Act 1981 (NT), s 44(3)(b)(I)&(ii)
Sola Optical v Mills (1987) 163 CLR 636
Young v Queensland Trustees (1956) 99 CLR 560
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:J Waters QC
Defendant:J McCormack
Solicitors:
Plaintiff:Hunt and Hunt
Defendant:J McCormack, Barrister & Solicitor
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  mar20011
Number of pages:  23

Mar20011
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
McKechnie v Gameson [2000] NTSC
No. 16 of 1991

BETWEEN:
ROBERT LACHLAN McKECHNIE

Plaintiff
AND:
ANTHONY McDOUGAL GAMESON

Defendant
AND:
SUSAN GAMESON
Second Defendant

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 9 June 2000)

For reasons which become apparent from a few examples, I do not find either the plaintiff or the first defendant to be wholly reliable as witnesses. That is partly due to the fact that the transactions at the heart of the dispute occurred about 13 years ago and were largely unrecorded, memories have dimmed or been distorted by subsequent events, and gaps in recollection have been filled by reconstruction. The absence of documents has allowed both men significant latitude to tell a story in the expectation of persuading the court to the version of events most favourable to his position. Neither has fully succeeded. There are, however, some documents which assist me in coming to my conclusions, and the absence of some other documents is also important in that regard.

The plaintiff claims from the defendants $50,500 being “outstanding principal” (the total advances being $51,000) repayable at a rate of $500 per week, together with interest at the rate of 12% to be paid quarterly. The defendants say that the money was not advanced by way of loan to them personally, but in their capacity as agents for a company, Graceful Pty Ltd. They say that there was no agreement to pay interest, and that in any event Mrs Gameson was not a party to the transaction whatever form it took.
Prior to the events giving rise to these proceedings, the Maranga Hotel in Darwin was owned by Graceful Pty Ltd and its business managed by the first defendant on its behalf. The second defendant worked in the hotel. The plaintiff was a patron. The plaintiff and first defendant became friends.
According to the plaintiff, the first defendant approached him in late 1986 for a loan to purchase the stock of the hotel business, he was told by the first defendant that he intended to lease the hotel and had an…

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 McKechnie v Gameson

Details

AGLC: McKechnie v Gameson [2000] NTSC 39
Case: [2000] NTSC 39
Decision Date: 9 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of McKechnie v Gameson involved a dispute over the repayment of monies lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff, McKechnie, sought repayment of $120,000, which he claimed was a personal loan to the defendant, Gameson. Gameson denied owing the money and argued that it was a loan to his agents, who were employees of a company called Megatech. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the money in question was a personal loan from the plaintiff to the defendant, or whether it was a loan made to the defendant's agents for their business purposes. The court had to determine the nature of the relationship between the parties and the intent behind the loan transaction. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Gameson's agents were acting within the scope of their employment when they received the funds.

The court found that the money was a personal loan to Gameson, not a loan to his agents for their business. The evidence indicated that the loan was intended to assist Gameson personally, and not for the benefit of Megatech. The court relied on the terms of the loan agreement and the conduct of the parties following the transaction to conclude that Gameson was personally liable for the repayment of the funds. The court dismissed Gameson's argument that the loan was intended for his agents, finding that there was no evidence to support this claim. The court awarded McKechnie the sum of $120,000 plus interest and costs.

Orders