Dai v Jiao [2011] NSWSC 538

The Court found that the plaintiff did not have the financial capacity to gift $190,000, and the circumstances, including the oral agreement, the plaintiff's conduct, and the defendant's deception regarding her intention to buy property, supported the conclusion that the funds were transferred as a loan to be repaid rather than as a gift.

Parties: Plaintiff: Wu Long Dai; First Defendant: Lijuan Jiao; Second Defendant: HSBC Bank Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 09 June 2011
Procedural Posture: Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome: Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant.
Legal Topics: Loan or Gift; Oral Agreements; Restitution; Intention of Parties

Contract Loan or Gift; Oral Agreements; Restitution; Intention of Parties

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Wu Long Dai

Plaintiff

Lijuan Jiao

First Defendant

HSBC Bank Australia Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

1 Whether the payment of $190,000 by plaintiff to defendant was a loan or a gift

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant.

Orders

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $190,000 plus interest from 3 August 2010 to the date of judgment at the prescribed rates pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.
The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs.