Phoparisut v Saengthong [2023] NSWDC 28

Phoparisut v Saengthong [2023] NSWDC 28

The first defendant did not disclose the name of her alleged principal to the plaintiffs, and thus could not rely on the defence of disclosed principal. The evidence did not establish that the second defendant was a party to the transactions. The plaintiffs could not recover assigned debts without joining assignors, as assignments were only equitable and not legal at commencement of proceedings.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Orawan Phoparisut; Second Plaintiff: Chitpong Prasertsri; First Defendant: Chatkaew Saengthong; Second Defendant: Yossarudee Saengthong
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for first plaintiff against first defendant in the sum of $69,764; judgment for second plaintiff against first defendant in the sum of $22,200; judgment for second defendant against the plaintiffs; interest pursuant to section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act; no order as to costs unless Notification is given.
Legal Topics
Principal and Agent, Undisclosed Principal, Assignment of Debts
Contract Principal and Agent Undisclosed Principal Assignment of Debts

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orawan Phoparisut

First Plaintiff

Chitpong Prasertsri

Second Plaintiff

Chatkaew Saengthong

First Defendant

Yossarudee Saengthong

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the first defendant had made out in her defence of being a disclosed principal
  2. 2 whether the plaintiff had established that the second defendant was a party to the currency transactions
  3. 3 whether the plaintiff can recover damages in relation to the assigned debts

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant did not disclose the name of her alleged principal to the plaintiffs, and thus could not rely on the defence of disclosed principal. The evidence did not establish that the second defendant was a party to the transactions. The plaintiffs could not recover assigned debts without joining assignors, as assignments were only equitable and not legal at commencement of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Judgment for first plaintiff against first defendant in the sum of $69,764; judgment for second plaintiff against first defendant in the sum of $22,200; judgment for second defendant against the plaintiffs; interest pursuant to section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act; no order as to costs unless Notification is given.

Orders

  • Judgment and verdict for the first plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $69,764
  • Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $22,200