Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd

The plaintiff, Queensland Trustees Limited, as executor of the estate of Gertrude Kathleen Halley, sued the defendant, Frank Stanley Young, for money lent. The defendant admitted receiving the loans but claimed to have repaid them in full during the deceased's lifetime. The Supreme Court of Queensland, per Philp J., found in favour of the plaintiff, disbelieving the defendant's evidence of repayment. The defendant appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the onus of proving repayment of a debt lay with the plaintiff, as contended by the defendant, or with the defendant, as asserted by the plaintiff. The defendant argued that his uncontradicted testimony regarding repayment should have been accepted and that the plaintiff bore the burden of disproving repayment.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court, holding that the onus of proving payment rests upon the defendant who raises it as a defence. The Court extensively reviewed the historical development of pleading, particularly in actions of debt and indebitatus assumpsit, to demonstrate that payment has always been considered a matter of discharge, requiring the defendant to plead and prove it. The Court disapproved of the reasoning in *Nelson v. Campbell* (1928) V.L.R. 364, which had suggested the onus lay with the plaintiff. The Court found no reason to disagree with Philp J.'s assessment of the defendant's evidence, noting the inherent improbabilities in his account and the lack of any corroborating evidence for his claims of repayment.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.