Kormendi v Hunter [2003] NSWSC 87

Kormendi v Hunter [2003] NSWSC 87

The evidence showed that extensions of time (or waivers of the right to immediate repayment) were granted by Mrs Hunter until formal demand was made in January 1996. The breach giving rise to the cause of action occurred upon failure to repay after that demand, starting the limitation period at that time. As proceedings were commenced within six years, the claim was not statute-barred. There was sufficient evidence for the Magistrate’s findings and no error of law demonstrated, except that a repayment of $2,500 should have been deducted from the judgment sum.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Eva Kormendi; Respondent/plaintiff: Johanna Hunter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Local Court to Supreme Court Common Law Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Agreements to Extend Time, Waiver of Rights in Contract, Error of Law on Appeal
Contract Law Civil Procedure Statute of Limitations Agreements to Extend Time Waiver of Rights in Contract Error of Law on Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eva Kormendi

Appellant/defendant

Johanna Hunter

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Local Court to Supreme Court Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cause of action was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1969
  2. 2 When the cause of action for the loan accrued
  3. 3 Whether agreements to extend time or waivers postponed the accrual date

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence showed that extensions of time (or waivers of the right to immediate repayment) were granted by Mrs Hunter until formal demand was made in January 1996. The breach giving rise to the cause of action occurred upon failure to repay after that demand, starting the limitation period at that time. As proceedings were commenced within six years, the claim was not statute-barred. There was sufficient evidence for the Magistrate’s findings and no error of law demonstrated, except that a repayment of $2,500 should have been deducted from the judgment sum.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for Mrs Hunter in the reduced sum of $17,500 (after deducting repayment)
  • Appeal otherwise dismissed