Williams, William v Williams, William [2023] NSWDC 10
Hearing dates:
2 and 3 November 2022 Written submissions filed 11, 18 and 25 November 2022
Date of orders:
6 February 2023
Decision date:
06 February 2023
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Before:
Andronos SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $213,000.
(2) The defendant pay interest on the judgment sum in the amount of $36,532.13.
(3) Stay orders (1) and (2) for 21 days.
Catchwords:
RESTITUTION — Nature of restitutionary liability — Common counts — Money had and received to the use of the plaintiff – Onus of proof – Money paid to defendant at the plaintiff’s direction – Where plaintiff requested repayment – Where defendant alleges gift
Legislation Cited:
Australian Securities and Investments Act 2001 (Cth), s 12CB
The plaintiff is the defendant’s father. The plaintiff acquired a work-related illness in 1994, as a result of which he is unable to engage in full-time employment. He received regular workers compensation payments, eventually backdated to the date of his injury in 1994. In April 2017 he brought a workers injury claim against his former employer, which was, in essence, a claim for past wages over and above the statutory workers compensation benefits he had received up until that time. The plaintiff is presently 69 years old.
On 25 January 2018, the plaintiff’s workers injury claim was settled at mediation. The plaintiff attended that mediation together with his barrister, his solicitor, his son, William (the…
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 Williams, William v Williams, William
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Williams, William v Williams, William [2023] NSWDC 10
Case
[2023] NSWDC 10
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Williams, William v Williams, William, the dispute arose between two parties of the same name, concerning a sum of money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had received money under a mistaken belief that it was a gift, and sought restitution of the amount paid. The defendant argued that the payment was indeed a gift, and that there was no basis for restitution.
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had established the necessary elements to claim restitution under the common counts action, specifically the "money had and received to the use of the plaintiff." This involved examining the onus of proof, the circumstances of the payment, and whether there was an intention for the payment to be a gift. The court also needed to consider whether the defendant's claim of a gift was a valid defence to the restitution claim.
The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the necessary elements for a restitutionary claim. The payment was made at the plaintiff’s direction and for a specific purpose, which was not fulfilled. The court held that the onus of proof lay on the defendant to establish that the payment was intended as a gift, which the defendant failed to do. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to restitution of the amount paid, less any set-off for services rendered. The court ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of $213,000, with interest of $36,532.13 on the judgment sum. The court also stayed the orders for 21 days to allow for any potential appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $213,000.
(2) The defendant pay interest on the judgment sum in the amount of $36,532.13.