Woodhouse v Woodhouse

The appeal concerned a dispute between a mother, Nicola Woodhouse, and her adult son, Philip Woodhouse, regarding an alleged oral agreement for a loan of $267,000. The mother claimed the loan was repayable after five years, while the son contended no such agreement existed. The mother had drawn cheques on the son's bank account in her favour, purportedly for interest and principal repayment. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that no agreement for a loan existed, and alternatively, whether the primary judge erred in concluding that any loan, if made, was repayable on demand, thereby commencing the limitation period at the time of the advance and rendering the action statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in not being persuaded that an agreement for a loan existed. The court reasoned that the evidence, including the mother's actions in drawing cheques on the son's account, supported the existence of a loan. Furthermore, the court determined that the loan was not repayable on demand, but rather was intended to be repaid at a later, unspecified time, meaning the limitation period had not yet commenced. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the previous orders were set aside, and judgment was entered for the mother for $250,000 plus interest, and for the son on his cross-claim for equitable compensation plus interest. Costs were also awarded on a mixed basis.