Kalache v Way Right Investments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 507

Kalache v Way Right Investments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 507

The plaintiff failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that an oral loan agreement existed or that he had advanced any money to the defendants; nor was there evidence sufficient to establish a restitution claim or the existence of a debt assigned by Stella Bella to the plaintiff. The only direct evidence of contract was rejected. The claims were dismissed because the plaintiff did not discharge the evidentiary onus.

Parties
Plaintiff: Nasser Kalache; First Defendant: Way Right Investments Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Vincent Movizio
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendants' summary judgment application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Proof of Oral Contract, Summary Judgment, Restitution, Assignment of Debt
Contract Law Civil Procedure Proof of Oral Contract Summary Judgment Restitution Assignment of Debt

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nasser Kalache

Plaintiff

Way Right Investments Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Vincent Movizio

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there an oral loan agreement between the plaintiff and defendants?
  2. 2 Did the transfer of $174,216.05 constitute a loan from the plaintiff to the defendants?
  3. 3 Was a debt assigned validly to the plaintiff under the Deed of Assignment?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that an oral loan agreement existed or that he had advanced any money to the defendants; nor was there evidence sufficient to establish a restitution claim or the existence of a debt assigned by Stella Bella to the plaintiff. The only direct evidence of contract was rejected. The claims were dismissed because the plaintiff did not discharge the evidentiary onus.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendants' summary judgment application dismissed.

Orders

  • Order that the first defendant's motion for summary judgment filed 2 August 2023 be dismissed.
  • Order the plaintiff's claim be dismissed.