NSW Caselaw
District Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Svenson v Doherty [2014] NSWDC 106 Decision date: 05 March 2014 Before: Cogswell SC DCJ Decision: Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $100,570.00. Catchwords: CIVIL LAW - whether money husband advanced to wife amounted to a loan - couple now deceased - absence of direct evidence - onus of proof of loan on plaintiff - plaintiff relied on affidavit and oral evidence of the deceased couple's solicitor - clauses of wife's will consistent with loan - loan repayable on demand - limitation period - whether cause of action confirmed - whether confirmation needs specific words - whether acknowledgment needs to be intended and delivered - action not statute barred. Legislation Cited: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 11(2), 14(1), 54. Cases Cited: Chidiac v Maatouk [2010] NSWSC 386. Hipworth v Mahar (1952) 87 CLR 335; [1952] ALR 633. In re Compania de Electricidad de la Provincia de Buenos Aires Ltd [1980] 1 Ch 146. Norton v Ellam (1837) 2 M & W 463; 150 ER 839. Plunkett v Bull [1915] HCA 544; 19 CLR 544. Sion v NSW Trustee & Guardian [2013] NSWCA 337. The Stage Club Ltd v Millers Hotels Pty Ltd (1981) 150 CLR 535; 38 ALR 253. Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd [1956] HCA 51; 99 CLR 560. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lloyd Svenson (plaintiff) Deborah Doherty (defendant) Representation: Counsel: L Ellison SC (plaintiff) B Pluznyk (defendant) File Number(s): DC 2013/00068261
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate