Grewal v Layton [2018] NSWSC 1634

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Grewal v Layton [2018] NSWSC 1634 Hearing dates: 17 October 2018 Decision date: 01 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List Before: Ball J Decision: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $204,871.66.

(2) Subject to orders (3) and (4), the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

(3) Order (2) is stayed for a period of 21 days.

(4) Liberty to either party to make an application to vary order (2) by relisting the matter by contacting my Associate within 21 days of today's date. Catchwords: CONTRACTS – Construction – Interpretation – No issue of principle Cases Cited: Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451; [2004] HCA 35 Pethybridge v Stedikas Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 154 Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165; [2004] HCA 52 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Manvinder Grewal (Plaintiff) Stephen James Layton (First Defendant) Furnmart Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) ACN 150 948 799) (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: J Dooley (Plaintiff) Litigant in Person (First Defendant)

Solicitors: Clyde & Co (Plaintiff) Litigant in Person (First Defendant) File Number(s): 2018/44464 Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction 1. In these proceedings, the plaintiff, Mr Manvinder Grewal, seeks to recover a loan of $175,000 he made pursuant to an agreement entered into through an exchange of SMS messages with the first defendant, Mr Stephen Layton, together with interest on the amount lent at Court rates. The only question in the proceedings is whether the agreement was made with Mr Layton or the second defendant, Furnmart Australia Pty Limited (Furnmart). At the time the loan was made, Furnmart was controlled by Mr Layton. It is now in liquidation. 2. The question before the Court is to be answered objectively - that is, it is to be answered by reference to the conclusions a reasonable person would reach from the facts known to the parties, including the purpose and object of the transaction: see Pethybridge v Stedikas Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 154 at [54] per Campbell JA (with whom Beazley and Basten JJA agreed); Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451; [2004] HCA 35 at [22]; Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165; [2004] HCA 52 at [40].