Peter John Conridge v Marius Emiele Schaapveld [2015] NSWSC 663

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Peter John Conridge v Marius Emiele Schaapveld [2015] NSWSC 663 Hearing dates: 22, 23 and 24 April 2015 Date of orders: 29 May 2015 Decision date: 29 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Rein J Decision: See [65] Catchwords: EQUITY- Wholly oral loan agreements - Loans claimed to be made to all four defendants - Dismissal of proceedings by consent against two alleged co-obligees - Whether there remains an action against the remaining two alleged co-obligees - Whether even if not barred plaintiff has established that any of the defendants were borrowers as opposed to one or other of two corporations - Whether plaintiff's claim is statute barred - Whether the plaintiff was under "a disability" within the meaning of s 52(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) due to incarceration - Whether the alleged debtors made payments which, by virtue of s 54(2)(a)(ii), recommenced the limitation period Legislation Cited: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) Cases Cited: Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 66; (2001) 205 CLR 635 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Bull v Lee (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 362 Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 Deane v City Bank of Sydney [1918] HCA 42; (1918) 25 CLR 215 Duck v Mayeu [1892] 2 QB 511 El-Mir v Risk [2005] NSWCA 215 Karaagac v GRE Insurance Ltd [1989] NSWCA 116 McDermott v Black [1940] HCA 4; (1940) 63 CLR 161 Mills v Fowkes (1839) 5 Bing NC 455; 132 ER 1174 Morris v State of New South Wales [2005] NSWDC 10 Murray-Oates v Jjadd Pty Ltd [1999] SASC 537; Re Estate of Levi & Co; Ex parte Levi (1874) 8 SALR 144 (FC) Re EWA (a debtor) [1901] 2 KB 642 Re Footman Bower & Co Ltd [1961] Ch 443; [1961] 2 WLR 667; [1961] 2 All ER 161 Scaffidi v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2011] WASCA 159; (2011) 42 WAR 59 Simson v Ingham (1823) 2 B & C 65, 107 ER 307 SW v New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 966 Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd [1996] HCA 38; (1996) 186 CLR 574 Walker v Bowry [1924] HCA 28; (1924) 35 CLR 48 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 Texts Cited: Glanville Williams, Joint Obligations (1949, Butterworth & Co) P. Handford, Limitation of Actions (2007, 2nd ed, Thomson Lawbook Co) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter John Conridge (Plaintiff) Marius Emiele Schaapveld (First Defendant) Marius Anthony Charles Schaapveld (Second Defendant) Justin Emiele Schaapveld (Third Defendant) Annette Mary Schaapveld (Fourth Defendant) Representation: Counsel: M.A Robinson SC/L.E Edwards (Plaintiff) D McGovern SC/ P Newton (First and Fourth Defendants) C.D Wood (Second and Third Defendants)