Quinn v Bryant - [2021] NSWDC 570

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Quinn v Bryant [2021] NSWDC 570
Hearing dates: 24, 25 February; 8 April 2021
Date of orders: 13 September 2021
Decision date: 13 September 2021
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:
(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $108,853.10.
(2)   Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
(3)   Liberty to either party to apply in respect of the costs order by email to my associate within 14 days.

Catchwords:
LOAN – advances from uncle to niece – legal fees – stamp duty - whether advanced sum a loan or a gift – conditional gift – loan – limitation period – interest – date from which interest is payable

Legislation Cited:
Limitation Act 1969

Cases Cited:
Argyll Park Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd v Glen Pacific Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 1
Chaudhary v Chaudhary [2017] NSWCA 222
Gray v Gray [2004] NSWCA 408
In the estate of the late Patrick Ambrose Tunchon [2019] NSWSC 802
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Terence Quinn (plaintiff)
Susan Bryant (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Wallis (plaintiff)
Mr A Moutasallem (defendant)
Solicitors:
Pryor Tzannes & Wallis (plaintiff)
Hancock Alldis & Roskov (defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/298560
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

A. Introduction

Terence Quinn is Susan Bryant’s uncle. He sues her for repayment of monies he provided starting about a decade ago. She says the monies were a gift.

B. Issues

Mr Quinn paid $55,000 to Ms Bryant’s initial litigation solicitor in four payments in 2011, and $5,692.57 in 2012 to her current solicitor who acted for her on the appeal in that litigation. Mr Quinn also paid $34,660 for her stamp duty charged on a purchase of property at Riverwood on about 24 October 2013. In respect of these payments, the primary issue is whether the monies were provided as a gift or a loan.
Mr Quinn alleges that he also provided a further $8,000 by way of loan to Ms Bryant on 3 May 2013. There is a question as to whether those funds were provided, and also, again, whether, if they were, was it by way of a gift or a loan.
The final issue is whether all but the stamp duty payment is statute-barred. The proceedings were commenced on 24 September 2019.

C. Background

(a) The arrangement

Joan Quinn, Mr Quinn’s mother, is elderly. In the years until 2009 she was given some personal and domestic care by her daughter, Elizabeth, Susan Bryant’s mother, until Elizabeth died in 2009.^[1] At that time, Joan Quinn was residing in Chifley, in the south-eastern suburbs of Sydney.
1. T19/3-32.
Mr Quinn was the sole operator of a cleaning business and lived reasonably proximate to his mother in a unit in Eastlakes. Ms Bryant lived with her two children in a Housing Commission unit in Allawah, near Blakehurst in the St George area on the western side of the airport.
Mr Quinn…

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 Quinn v Bryant

Details

AGLC: Quinn v Bryant [2021] NSWDC 570
Case: [2021] NSWDC 570
Decision Date: 13 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quinn v Bryant is a case involving a dispute over sums of money advanced by an uncle to his niece, Bryant, and the legal costs associated with the proceedings. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue in the case was whether the sums advanced by the uncle to the niece constituted a loan or a gift, and if a loan, the implications this had for the calculation of interest and the applicable limitation period. The court was also required to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the stamp duty paid on the loan agreement and if the interest on the loan was to be calculated from a specific date.

The court found that the sums advanced by the uncle were indeed a loan, not a gift, as there were conditions attached to the advances. The conditions included the repayment of the principal amount and interest, and these were clearly outlined in the loan agreement. The court held that the limitation period for bringing an action on the loan started from the date the loan was made, and interest was to be calculated from the date of the loan agreement. The court also ruled that the stamp duty paid on the loan agreement was recoverable by the plaintiff as it was a valid and enforceable agreement. The decision clarified the legal status of the transaction and the obligations of the parties involved.

The court's judgment resulted in a final order that the defendant, Bryant, pay the plaintiff, Quinn, the sum of $108,853.10, which included the principal amount, interest, and stamp duty. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. The court provided liberty to either party to apply in respect of the costs order by email to the judge’s associate within 14 days of the judgment. This comprehensive decision provided clarity on the nature of the transaction and the financial obligations of the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $108,853.10.

(2) Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

(3) Liberty to either party to apply in respect of the costs order by email to my associate within 14 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Quinn v Bryant [2021] NSWDC 570
Hearing dates:	24, 25 February; 8 April 2021
Date of orders:	13 September 2021
Decision date:	13 September 2021
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $108,853.10. (2) Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings. (3) Liberty to either party to apply in respect of the costs order by email to my associate within 14 days.
Catchwords:	LOAN – advances from uncle to niece – legal fees – stamp duty - whether advanced sum a loan or a gift – conditional gift – loan – limitation period – interest – date from which interest is payable
Legislation Cited:	Limitation Act 1969
Cases Cited:	Argyll Park Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd v Glen Pacific Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 1 Chaudhary v Chaudhary [2017] NSWCA 222 Gray v Gray [2004] NSWCA 408 In the estate of the late Patrick Ambrose Tunchon [2019] NSWSC 802 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Terence Quinn (plaintiff) Susan Bryant (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr P Wallis (plaintiff) Mr A Moutasallem (defendant) Solicitors: Pryor Tzannes & Wallis (plaintiff) Hancock Alldis & Roskov (defendant)
File Number(s):	2019/298560
Publication restriction:	None