Dobrinski v Slade [2010] NSWDC 297

Dobrinski v Slade [2010] NSWDC 297

The court found that the plaintiff advanced loans to the defendant supported by requests and promises to pay. Each time the defendant promised to repay, a new enforceable contract arose, reviving any obligations even if prior claims might have been time-barred. The evidence did not support a defence of forgiveness, waiver, or that loans were actually gifts to the daughters. Judgment was entered for the sum claimed less concessions.

Parties
Plaintiff: Irene Dobrinski; Defendant: Roslyn Slade
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Loans in Family Situations, Debts and Repayment, Limitation Period, Forgiveness of Loans
Contract Loans in Family Situations Debts and Repayment Limitation Period Forgiveness of Loans

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irene Dobrinski

Plaintiff

Roslyn Slade

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance of $514,941.60 under a contract or contracts for loans to the defendant
  2. 2 Whether some loans are barred by the Limitation Act 1969 s 14
  3. 3 Whether a defence of forgiveness or waiver of the loans applies

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff advanced loans to the defendant supported by requests and promises to pay. Each time the defendant promised to repay, a new enforceable contract arose, reviving any obligations even if prior claims might have been time-barred. The evidence did not support a defence of forgiveness, waiver, or that loans were actually gifts to the daughters. Judgment was entered for the sum claimed less concessions.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff for $514,941.60.
  • Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs.