JUDGE:	ELLIOTT J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	7-10, 15 MARCH 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 MARCH 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SUH v CHO
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 108

---

CONTRACT – Loan between directors – Loan from company to director – Unconscionable conduct – Economic duress – Defences not established – Demands for repayment – Construction of the contract – Repayment of both loans due – Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), schedule 2, the Australian Consumer Law, ss 20, 22.

DIRECTORS’ DUTIES – Alleged breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties – Alleged misappropriation of company assets – Establishing competitive business – Knowing involvement – Constructive trust – Breaches not established – Constructive trust not established.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	S S R Lee (Solicitor)	Spencer Reyner Law Office Pty Ltd
For the First Defendant	In Person
For the Second Defendant	In Person
For the Third Defendant	Second Defendant (by leave)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

B.. Background................................................................................................................................... 2

C.. Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 7

C.1... Repayment of the Company Loan.................................................................................... 7
C.2... Repayment of the Personal Loan.................................................................................... 12
C.3... Declaratory relief sought.................................................................................................. 16

D.. Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 24

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

The first defendant, Jeff Cho (“Cho”), is a qualified plumber.

On 14 September 2005, the second plaintiff, Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd (“Jeff the Plumber”) was incorporated. From 2005 until early 2009, Jeff the Plumber conducted a plumbing business, with Cho as its sole director.

In 2008, the first plaintiff, Jung Wha Suh (“Suh”) was renovating an investment property he had bought. As part of these renovations, Cho performed some plumbing works for Suh.

Suh had only arrived in Australia in July 2007. Suh’s English was poor and he was unable to secure employment for some time. Both Cho and Suh were former residents of the Republic of Korea. Partly a result of this connection, from around April 2008, Cho and Suh met approximately 2 times per month.

Suh observed Cho’s work, and engaged in discussions with Cho about the nature of Jeff the Plumber’s business. Over time, they also discussed the prospect of Suh becoming involved in the business. Suh had little or no plumbing skills, having been a banker in Korea for 22 years. However, Suh thought he and Cho could work together. To this end, the prospect of expanding Jeff the Plumber’s business, to include retailing of plumbing equipment, solar panels and various other items, was discussed.

The second defendant, Christi Ho (“Ho”) is Cho’s wife. Ho performed bookkeeping services for Jeff the Plumber. Ho was introduced to Suh, by Cho, in the second half of 2008.

Ho caused the third defendant, Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd (“Jeff & Sons”) to be incorporated on 29 June 2009. Ho is the sole director and shareholder of Jeff & Sons.

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 Suh v Cho

Details

AGLC: Suh v Cho [2016] VSC 108
Case: [2016] VSC 108
Decision Date: 21 MARCH 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Suh v Cho involved the plaintiff, Suh, who sought repayment of two loans made to the defendant, Cho, who was a director of a company. The dispute centred on whether Cho had engaged in unconscionable conduct, economic duress, or breached his fiduciary duties, and whether these actions warranted a constructive trust or repayment of the loans. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether Cho had engaged in unconscionable conduct or economic duress in relation to the loans, whether he had breached his fiduciary and statutory duties as a director, and whether these breaches justified a constructive trust or the repayment of the loans. The court also had to consider the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), specifically sections 20 and 22, which pertain to unfair practices and unconscionable conduct.

The court found that Cho had not engaged in unconscionable conduct or economic duress in relation to the loans. Furthermore, the court determined that Cho had not breached his fiduciary or statutory duties, nor had he misappropriated company assets to establish a competitive business. Consequently, the court concluded that a constructive trust was not warranted. The court ruled that the construction of the loan agreements required repayment of both loans. This decision was based on the clear terms of the agreements and the absence of any legal justification for avoiding repayment.

The final orders of the court directed Cho to repay the two loans to Suh within a specified period. The court dismissed Suh's claims for unconscionable conduct, economic duress, and breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties. The court also rejected Suh's request for a constructive trust and ordered that the loans be repaid in accordance with their original terms.

Orders