Chaudhary v Chaudhary [2017] NSWCA 222

Chaudhary v Chaudhary [2017] NSWCA 222

The advances by Vincent were loans to Adrian, not gifts, objectively evidenced by conduct and documentation, and the arrangement (including the Second Mortgage to secure Adrian’s obligation, with Justine’s interest limited to the property) was not unjust under the Contracts Review Act. The orders of the primary judge were set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Vincent Jeet Chaudhary; First Respondent: Adrian Bikram Chaudhary; Second Respondent: Justine Meredith Williams-Chaudhary
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Orders of primary judge set aside and orders substituted.
Legal Topics
Torrens Title, Mortgages, Loan or Gift Distinction, Unjust Contract, Contracts Review Act
Real Property Contracts Family Law Torrens Title Mortgages Loan or Gift Distinction Unjust Contract Contracts Review Act

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

Parties

Vincent Jeet Chaudhary

Appellant

Adrian Bikram Chaudhary

First Respondent

Justine Meredith Williams-Chaudhary

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether advances from father to son were a loan or gift
  2. 2 Whether any contract or mortgage was unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The advances by Vincent were loans to Adrian, not gifts, objectively evidenced by conduct and documentation, and the arrangement (including the Second Mortgage to secure Adrian’s obligation, with Justine’s interest limited to the property) was not unjust under the Contracts Review Act. The orders of the primary judge were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Orders of primary judge set aside and orders substituted.

Orders

  • Declare that $1,674,969.99 plus interest from 8 June 2017 until date of orders at $59.17 per day be paid to the plaintiff out of the controlled monies account established per Family Court order of 16 June 2016 in proceedings between first and second respondent.
  • Order the second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.