Was a private loan of funds a gift or a loan, were the contract terms effectively varied, and how was the credibility of the defendant's witnesses assessed?

Contested Loan or Gift: Judicial Determination of a $300,000 Loan Agreement Amidst Disputed Evidence and Credibility Challenges

Introduction Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Kempe v Grine [2025] NSWDC 227, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

Court of Hearing: District Court of New South Wales
Presiding Judge: Gibson DCJ
Cause of Action: Contract (Recovery of a loan)
Judgment Date: 23 June 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Loan Agreement
Keyword 3: Contract Variation
Keyword 4: Credibility Assessment
Keyword 5: Post-Contractual Conduct
Keyword 6: Quantum Calculation

Background:

The Plaintiff brought proceedings seeking to recover a loan of $300,000 made to the Defendant, together with 20% interest as stipulated in an alleged contract. The Defendant vehemently denied that the money was a loan, asserting it was a gift, or alternatively, that no contract was ever signed. If a contract did exist, the Defendant claimed its terms, particularly the interest rate, had been varied. A significant challenge in the Defendant’s case was the alleged destruction of her documentary evidence, including banking records, in a house fire, leading to a heavy reliance on oral testimony from herself and her accountants. The Plaintiff, conversely, relied on a draft loan agreement, contemporaneous text messages, and the Defendant’s post-agreement conduct, including initial repayments, to establish her claim.

Core Disputes and Claims:

Plaintiff’s Claim: The Plaintiff sought the recovery of the principal loan amount of $300,000, along with 20% interest per annum as specified in the loan agreement, less any repayments made.
Defendant’s Denial/Alternative Claim: The Defendant denied any money was due, claiming the $300,000 was a gift. Alternatively, she asserted that no loan agreement was ever signed or agreed upon, or that if an agreement existed, the terms were varied, specifically reducing the interest rate to 5%. She argued that her liability, if any, should not exceed $176,091.80.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between the Plaintiff, Ms Bridget Anne Kempe, and the Defendant, Ms Rosa Grine, became intertwined during a challenging period in the Plaintiff’s life. The Plaintiff was navigating a difficult divorce and property settlement, from which she received $300,000, representing the entirety of her financial assets. Adding to her emotional burden, her brother, Paul Sylvester, had resided with the Defendant until his death in May 2018 following a prolonged illness. In June 2018, the Plaintiff stayed with the Defendant for two consecutive weekends.

The Defendant, an office manager and elected Councillor, also ran a business called “Happi Chicken” from her residence. In late 2018, her business encountered difficulties when a proposed partnership agreement fell through. Aware of the Plaintiff’s recent property settlement, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff, initially seeking a loan of $120,000 to cover outstanding bills and establish a new “Happi Chicken” outlet. The Defendant, in conversation, suggested “Perhaps gifting the money would be better.” However, following discussions on 30 November 2018, the Plaintiff explicitly stated, “I’ll loan you the money if we have a contract drawn up,” to which the Defendant agreed to “organise it and send you my bank account details to transfer the money.”

Text messages exchanged that day confirmed that the Defendant’s accountant, Mr Cyril Quek, was drafting the contract. The Plaintiff, despite a poor relationship with Mr Quek (who was her sister’s husband), proceeded with the arrangement. On 30 November 2018, the Plaintiff transferred $300,000 into her own bank account, intending to transfer it to the Defendant, but was unable to do so via internet banking.

On 1 December 2018, Mr Quek emailed the draft loan agreement to the Defendant. The Defendant admitted reading this document before forwarding it to the Plaintiff on 2 December 2018 at 1:25 PM. In anticipation, the Plaintiff had already obtained a bank cheque for $300,000 payable to the Defendant. Upon receiving and reviewing the draft, the Plaintiff travelled to the Defendant’s home, where she met the Defendant and Mr Quek. The Plaintiff confirmed the printed agreement was identical to the draft she had received, and after a brief exchange, she signed it. The Defendant, according to the Plaintiff, also signed the document. The Plaintiff then handed over the $300,000 bank cheque, with the Defendant promising to take the signed contract to her solicitor, Ms McAllister, and send a copy to the Plaintiff. No signed copy was ever provided to the Plaintiff, nor was any other contractual document produced by the Defendant or her advisors.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Plaintiff’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

Contemporaneous Communications: Text messages from 30 November 2018 between the Plaintiff and Defendant explicitly discuss a “contract being drawn up” by Mr Quek for a loan.
Draft Loan Agreement: An email from the Defendant to the Plaintiff on 2 December 2018 contained the draft loan agreement prepared by Mr Quek. This document detailed a $300,000 loan, a 20% per annum interest rate ($5,000 per month), repayment by 1 December 2022, and an option for the Plaintiff to convert the loan into a 35% shareholding in “Happi Chicken.”
Loan Advance: A bank cheque for $300,000 was issued by the Plaintiff and handed to the Defendant on 2 December 2018.
Oral Testimony: The Plaintiff’s consistent evidence that she signed the loan agreement and the Defendant verbally acknowledged signing it and taking it to her solicitor.
Post-Contractual Conduct: The Defendant made 15 weekly cash payments to the Plaintiff, which closely approximated the 20% interest rate stipulated in the draft agreement, strongly supporting the existence and terms of the contract.
Defendant’s Acknowledgements: The Defendant (and her accountants, albeit reluctantly) acknowledged the Plaintiff had an option to convert the loan into a business share.
Legal Demands: Letters of demand from the Plaintiff’s solicitors clearly outlined the claim based on the terms of the 20% interest loan agreement.
Inherent Implausibility: The Plaintiff argued it was highly improbable she would gift her entire property settlement funds to the Defendant, a person with whom she did not have an intimately close relationship.

Defendant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

Claim of Gift: The Defendant initially asserted the $300,000 was a gift, not a loan.
Denial of Signed Contract: The Defendant denied that the loan agreement was ever signed or agreed to.
Alleged Contract Variation: Alternatively, the Defendant contended that the contract was varied, specifically that the interest rate was reduced from 20% to 5%.
Missing Documentation: The Defendant claimed that most of her banking records and other relevant documents were destroyed in a house fire on 21 October 2021.
Accountants’ Testimony: The Defendant relied on her accountants, Linda Day and Jasmine Day, who claimed never to have seen the original contract, stated the 20% interest was “ridiculous” and “illegal” (due to Division 7A concerns), and produced an amortization schedule based on a 5% interest rate and deductions for alleged accommodation costs. They also claimed the Plaintiff repeatedly changed her mind about the nature of the transaction (loan vs. gift).
Reduced Indebtedness: The Defendant asserted that she should only be ordered to pay $176,091.80.
Failure to Call Witness: Ms McAllister, the Defendant’s solicitor who supposedly held the signed agreement, was not called to give evidence.

Core Dispute Points:

Nature of Funds: Was the $300,000 a loan or a gift?
Contract Formation: Was a valid and binding loan agreement formed between the Plaintiff and Defendant on 2 December 2018, and were the terms as set out in the draft prepared by Mr Quek?
Contract Variation: If a contract was formed, was the interest rate of 20% per annum subsequently varied to 5% or any other rate?
Witness Credibility: The truthfulness and reliability of the testimony provided by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant’s accountants (Linda and Jasmine Day).
Quantum of Indebtedness: The precise amount of principal and interest owed, taking into account any valid repayments.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In this litigation, the affidavits served as the foundational documents for presenting each party’s factual matrix to the Court, but they also became a critical battleground for credibility.

The Plaintiff’s affidavit presented a coherent and detailed account of the events leading to the loan, the agreement’s formation, and the subsequent lack of full repayment. Her narrative was largely consistent with the objective contemporaneous evidence—the text messages, email of the draft agreement, and banking records showing the $300,000 transfer. The Plaintiff’s affidavit constructed a compelling case for a clear loan transaction, with specific terms that she understood and agreed to.

Conversely, the Defendant’s affidavit, and those of her accountants, Linda Day and Jasmine Day, displayed significant inconsistencies and ultimately undermined their own case. Their affidavits sought to frame the $300,000 as a gift, or to argue that the 20% interest rate was invalid or varied. A crucial point of comparison was the identical wording found across large sections of Linda Day’s and Jasmine Day’s affidavits, which raised serious questions about the independent recollection and veracity of their statements. This “cut and paste” approach, as highlighted by the Court, revealed an attempt to construct a unified, albeit unsupported, narrative rather than presenting genuinely independent factual accounts.

The Judge’s procedural directions, particularly through extensive cross-examination, were strategically aimed at dissecting these affidavits. This process forced the witnesses to confront discrepancies between their sworn statements and other evidence, including their own prior communications. The objective was to expose untruths or inconsistencies, thereby revealing the actual facts and the credibility of each party’s version of events. The Court noted the Defendant’s lack of supporting documentation and the implausibility of her claims regarding document destruction, further highlighting the strategic intent to scrutinise unsupported assertions.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

This judgment primarily records the Court’s final findings and orders following a contested hearing. Prior to the delivery of this final judgment, the Court would have issued standard procedural orders to manage the litigation process. These typically include directions for the filing and exchange of pleadings (statements of claim, defences), discovery of relevant documents, the filing of affidavits (witness statements), and the scheduling of interlocutory hearings and the final trial. The case proceeded to a full hearing over several days (2 – 4 June and 13 June 2025), indicating that these preliminary procedural steps were completed, allowing the Court to hear evidence and submissions.

The definitive orders made by Gibson DCJ at the conclusion of the proceedings on 23 June 2025 were:
1. Judgment for the Plaintiff for the sum of $593,666.21.
2. The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs.
3. Liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs, allowing parties to return to the Court for further directions or calculations regarding these aspects.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The courtroom transformed into a critical arena where the competing narratives of the Plaintiff and Defendant were subjected to rigorous scrutiny through oral testimony and cross-examination. The Plaintiff presented a clear, consistent, and logically ordered account, detailing the initial discussions about the loan, the Defendant’s agreement to a formal contract, the exchange of the draft loan agreement, and her subsequent provision of the $300,000 bank cheque. Under cross-examination, the Plaintiff remained resolute, making concessions where appropriate and giving precise responses, which lent significant weight to her credibility.

The core of the dispute revolved around the existence and terms of the loan agreement. The Plaintiff testified that she signed the agreement in the Defendant’s home and handed over the cheque, with the Defendant assuring her that a signed copy would follow from her solicitor. This crucial piece of testimony was powerfully corroborated by contemporaneous text messages where the Defendant explicitly confirmed that her accountant, Mr Quek, was “doing a contract” for the loan. Furthermore, the Defendant’s own act of emailing the draft loan agreement to the Plaintiff shortly before the cheque handover, and her initial 15 weekly cash payments that closely matched the 20% interest stipulated in that draft, provided a compelling factual chain supporting the Plaintiff’s narrative.

In stark contrast, the Defendant and her two accountants, Linda Day and Jasmine Day, presented a largely unconvincing and inconsistent defence. The Defendant denied signing the agreement and claimed the money was a gift or that the interest rate was varied. However, she could not produce any supporting documentation, citing a house fire, an explanation the Court found unpersuasive for missing banking records obtainable from financial institutions. The testimony of Linda Day and Jasmine Day proved to be a critical failure for the Defendant’s case. They claimed never to have seen the original loan agreement, yet contemporaneous emails between Linda Day and the Defendant’s then-solicitor, Ms McAllister, explicitly referred to a “draft Loan Agreement” and discussed matters directly related to its terms, including a 35% share and commercial interest rates. These emails directly contradicted their oral evidence and their assertion that the 20% interest rate was “ridiculous” or “illegal.” The Court also noted the strikingly identical wording in their affidavits, which further undermined their credibility.

The Judge’s reasoning was firmly anchored in the objective chain of evidence and a stringent assessment of witness credibility. The inconsistencies in the Defendant’s and her accountants’ evidence, coupled with their implausible explanations and lack of documentary support, stood in sharp relief against the Plaintiff’s consistent and corroborated account.

“Neither Linda Day nor Jasmine Day should be regarded as a witness of credit. I propose to disregard their evidence entirely.”

This unequivocal statement from Gibson DCJ highlights the complete failure of the Defendant’s key witnesses to convince the Court of their truthfulness, effectively stripping away the Defendant’s primary factual support.

“I am comfortably satisfied that not only did the plaintiff sign the contract, but that the defendant did so as well. The failure of the defendant to identify the contractual document she showed to Linda Day and to Ms McAllister is not to her credit.”

This finding directly addresses and resolves the core factual dispute over the contract’s execution, affirming the Plaintiff’s version and casting further doubt on the Defendant’s claims of denial.

“In contrast, the plaintiff gave evidence in a frank and straightforward manner, making concessions where appropriate, and giving precise and pertinent responses.”

This positive assessment of the Plaintiff’s demeanour and testimony underscores why her narrative was accepted by the Court, establishing a strong foundation for the final judgment.

The objective evidence, particularly the early text messages and the content of the draft loan agreement, strongly corroborated the Plaintiff’s testimony. The Defendant’s post-contractual conduct (initial payments) also aligned with the Plaintiff’s claims about the loan terms. This robust factual matrix, combined with the Court’s decisive rejection of the Defendant’s and her witnesses’ credibility, compelled the Judge to conclude that a valid and binding loan agreement, on the terms asserted by the Plaintiff, was in existence.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

Following a thorough examination of the evidence and legal arguments presented over the course of the hearing, the District Court of New South Wales, presided over by Gibson DCJ, delivered its final judgment on 23 June 2025. The Court found in favour of the Plaintiff, Ms Bridget Anne Kempe.

The specific orders made by the Court were as follows:
1. Judgment for the Plaintiff for the sum of $593,666.21.
2. The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs.
3. Liberty to apply was granted in relation to interest and costs, which allows the parties to make further applications to the Court regarding the precise calculation of pre-judgment interest (beyond the contractual interest) and the assessment or final determination of legal costs.

This judgment decisively resolved the core disputes, affirming the existence of the loan agreement, its terms, and rejecting the Defendant’s claims of a gift or contract variation.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This judgment serves as a profound illustration of how the Australian legal system navigates evidentiary challenges, particularly in the absence of complete formal documentation. It provides a clear roadmap for establishing contract formation and terms through a compelling confluence of circumstantial evidence and, crucially, the rigorous assessment of witness credibility. The Court’s explicit discrediting of the Defendant’s witnesses due to inconsistencies with contemporaneous documents and implausible explanations is a powerful reminder of the high evidentiary bar in litigation. Moreover, the case demonstrates that while a signed document is ideal, post-contractual conduct consistently aligned with alleged terms can be equally, if not more, persuasive to a judicial officer. The Judge’s decision to ultimately award the sum sought by the Plaintiff (which was a reduction from the calculated amount) due to the Plaintiff’s “credit” is a noteworthy, albeit uncommon, judicial comment that highlights the influence of a party’s overall honesty and reasonableness during proceedings.

Judgment Points

The Court’s ruling contained several noteworthy points:
* Contract Formation by Conduct: Despite the Defendant’s denial of signing the contract, the Court found a binding agreement existed, largely inferred from the parties’ conduct (text messages, email of draft, tender of cheque, initial repayments).
* Credibility as the Cornerstone: The Judge explicitly stated that the Defendant and her accountants (Linda and Jasmine Day) were not witnesses of credit, leading to the outright disregard of their evidence. This highlights the decisive role credibility plays in resolving conflicting factual accounts.
* Inconsistency with Contemporaneous Records: The Court meticulously detailed how the oral evidence of the Defendant’s witnesses contradicted their own emails, a powerful tool in undermining their testimony.
* Implausibility of Claims: The Defendant’s various claims—gift, unsigned contract, 5% interest rate, lost documents due to fire—were individually assessed and found to lack plausibility when confronted with other evidence.
* Plaintiff’s Concession on Quantum: The Judge noted the Plaintiff’s willingness to accept a lower sum than strictly calculated was “to her credit,” influencing the final award.

Legal Basis

The Court applied fundamental principles of contract law and evidence to resolve the dispute:
* Contract Formation: The principle that a contract does not strictly require a signature to be binding if offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations are established, often by the parties’ conduct. The Court referenced PRA Electrical Pty Ltd v Perseverance Exploration Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 310; 20 VR 487.
* Interpretation of Contractual Terms: Post-contractual conduct is admissible to assist in establishing whether a contract was formed and what its terms were, as established in cases such as Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153. The Defendant’s initial interest payments were crucial here.
* Contractual Variation: For any alleged variation to be binding, it must meet all the requirements for a new contract, including fresh consideration. The Defendant failed to demonstrate this for her alleged interest rate reduction, citing W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd v Laureen Margaret Mayo [2013] NSWSC 1063.
* Adverse Inferences (Jones v Dunkel): The Defendant’s failure to call Ms McAllister, her former solicitor who allegedly held the signed contract, led to an inference that her evidence would not have supported the Defendant’s case.

Evidence Chain

The Plaintiff’s victory was anchored by a robust and logically consistent chain of evidence:
* Initial Textual Agreement: The text messages confirmed the Defendant’s request for a loan and the Plaintiff’s condition of a written contract, establishing an intention to create legal relations.
* Draft Agreement & Transfer: The Defendant herself distributed the draft loan agreement, outlining the $300,000 principal and 20% interest, immediately followed by the Plaintiff’s transfer of the funds via bank cheque.
* Early Repayments: The Defendant’s immediate cash payments to the Plaintiff, aligning with the 20% interest rate, served as compelling post-contractual conduct affirming the original terms.
* Accountants’ Contradictions: The Defendant’s accountants’ claims of not seeing the original contract were directly contradicted by their own email correspondence with Ms McAllister, which referenced a draft loan agreement and its terms. This blatant inconsistency severely undermined the Defendant’s counter-narrative.
* Absence of Alternative Evidence: Despite claims of document destruction due to fire, the Defendant failed to provide any alternative documentation (e.g., from banks) or a credible explanation for the missing original contract, leaving her assertions unsupported.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Court’s evaluation of evidence and credibility formed the bedrock of its decision, as exemplified by these crucial excerpts:

“Linda Day’s evidence is wholly inconsistent with these emails. First, she claimed to have challenged Mr Quek about the interest rate and told him that any interest above 5% would attract the attention of the ATO… Second, she claimed that the way Mr Quek set this proposal up was ‘ridiculous’ and amounted to ‘substantial compensation’ for the plaintiff…”

This detailed critique by Gibson DCJ exposed the irreconcilable differences between the accountant’s sworn testimony and her own written communications, which was determinative in discrediting her evidence regarding the alleged variation of the interest rate.

“Neither Linda Day nor Jasmine Day should be regarded as a witness of credit. I propose to disregard their evidence entirely.”

This unequivocal declaration by the Judge summarily dismissed the testimony of the Defendant’s key supporting witnesses. The finding that their evidence was wholly unreliable meant that the Defendant’s claims of contract variation and the gift narrative largely stood uncorroborated, severely weakening her defence.

“I am comfortably satisfied that not only did the plaintiff sign the contract, but that the defendant did so as well. The failure of the defendant to identify the contractual document she showed to Linda Day and to Ms McAllister is not to her credit.”

This definitive finding directly resolves the central factual dispute regarding the existence and execution of the loan agreement. The Judge’s conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence and credibility assessments, established the binding nature of the contract and highlighted the Defendant’s evidentiary failures.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Defendant’s case collapsed primarily due to:
1. Credibility Deficit: The Defendant and her primary witnesses (Linda and Jasmine Day) were found to be wholly unreliable. Their evidence was inconsistent, implausible, and directly contradicted by contemporaneous documents, leading the Court to disregard their testimony entirely.
2. Lack of Corroboration: Despite asserting a gift or contract variation, the Defendant failed to produce any objective, credible evidence to support these claims. Her explanation of lost documents due to a fire was insufficient to justify the absence of banking records that could have clarified repayment histories or interest rate agreements.
3. Inconsistent Narrative: The Defendant’s shifting positions, from claiming a gift to alleging an unsigned contract, then to a varied interest rate, lacked a coherent and provable basis, making her case appear opportunistic rather than truthful.
4. Failure to Call Key Witness: The Defendant’s solicitor, Ms McAllister, who had received the loan agreement from the Defendant, was not called to give evidence. This omission triggered an adverse Jones v Dunkel inference, suggesting her testimony would not have helped the Defendant.
5. Failure to Engage with Demands: The Defendant’s delayed and vague responses to the Plaintiff’s solicitors’ clear letters of demand, coupled with unsubstantiated claims of an “illegal” interest rate, demonstrated a failure to meaningfully address the Plaintiff’s claim until litigation.

Implications
1. Formalise Agreements, Always: Even in seemingly informal or personal transactions, especially involving substantial sums, always reduce agreements to writing and ensure all parties sign. This provides undeniable proof of terms and intentions.
2. Maintain Meticulous Records: This case underscores the critical importance of keeping all relevant documentation—text messages, emails, bank statements, and contracts. These contemporaneous records can be invaluable in establishing facts and discrediting false claims.
3. Credibility Under Scrutiny: Your conduct and consistency throughout a legal dispute, from initial communications to testimony in court, will be rigorously assessed. Inconsistencies or implausible explanations can severely undermine your case, regardless of other evidence.
4. Truthfulness is Paramount: Attempts to mislead the court, either through inconsistent statements or unsubstantiated claims, will likely backfire spectacularly. Integrity is a powerful asset in litigation.
5. Proactive Legal Engagement: Do not ignore legal demands. Engage with legal correspondence promptly and comprehensively. A robust, documented response early on can clarify disputes and prevent escalation to costly and prolonged litigation.

Q&A Session

Q1: Can a loan agreement be enforced if it wasn’t formally signed by both parties?

A1: Yes, absolutely. This case demonstrates that even without a formal signature, a contract can be deemed to exist and be enforceable if there is sufficient evidence of offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration, often inferred from the parties’ conduct and contemporaneous communications like emails and text messages. The key is to show that both parties acted as if a contract was in place according to specific terms.

Q2: What impact does a witness’s credibility have on the outcome of a legal dispute?

A2: Witness credibility is often determinative, especially in cases where there is conflicting oral evidence and a lack of clear documentary proof. As seen here, if a judge finds a witness to be unreliable due to inconsistencies, implausible statements, or contradictions with other evidence, their testimony may be entirely disregarded. Conversely, a witness who gives frank, consistent, and well-supported evidence is more likely to be believed, significantly strengthening their party’s case.

Q3: What should I do if the other party claims they lost important documents in an unforeseen event like a fire?

A3: While a genuine loss of documents can occur, the Court will still expect all reasonable efforts to be made to recreate or obtain replacement evidence. In this case, the Defendant claimed a fire destroyed banking records, but the Court noted these could have been obtained from the bank. If you face such a situation, you should immediately inform your legal representative and explore all avenues to retrieve or reconstruct the lost information to avoid adverse inferences.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Civil Litigation – Contract (Loan Recovery) and Credibility Dispute
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

④ Commercial Law and Corporate Law

Core Test (Contract Formation): Are the four essential elements present: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, and Intention to create legal relations?
* Offer: The Defendant’s request for a loan and proposal of terms (including 20% interest and an option for shareholding) constituted an offer.
* Acceptance: The Plaintiff’s agreement to the loan “if we have a contract drawn up,” her subsequent signing of the draft agreement, and tendering of the bank cheque demonstrated acceptance of the proposed terms. The Court ultimately found actual signing by both parties.
* Consideration: The Plaintiff provided $300,000 (the loan funds) as consideration, and the Defendant provided the promise of repayment with interest and security.
* Intention to create legal relations: The drafting of a formal “Loan Agreement” by an accountant, the substantial sum involved ($300,000), and the specified interest rate and repayment terms clearly indicated an intention to create legally binding obligations, despite the personal relationship.

⑨ Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Core Test: Has the Limitation Period expired? Does the Court have Jurisdiction over the matter? Has the duty of Discovery/Disclosure of evidence been satisfied?
* Limitation Period: For a breach of contract in New South Wales, the general limitation period is 6 years from the date the cause of action accrues (Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)). The loan was made in December 2018 and stipulated for repayment by 1 December 2022. The proceedings were filed on 17 July 2024, which is within the 6-year period from the final repayment date or from the date of default on interest payments.
* Jurisdiction: The New South Wales District Court clearly had civil jurisdiction over a contract dispute of this monetary value and nature.
* Duty of Discovery/Disclosure of evidence: The Defendant’s claims of document destruction due to a fire raised significant questions regarding her compliance with discovery obligations. The Court noted that banking records should have been obtainable from the bank, implying that full disclosure was not met or adequately explained, contributing to the adverse findings against her.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

In a scenario where statutory contract formation might be disputed, principles of Equity could offer alternative avenues for redress.
* Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
* Clear and unequivocal promise or representation: The Defendant’s consistent representation that the money was a loan, not a gift, her active role in facilitating the drafting of a formal loan agreement, and the clear terms within that draft (even if its formal execution was disputed) could constitute a promise.
* Detrimental reliance: The Plaintiff acted to her detriment by advancing her entire property settlement funds ($300,000) to the Defendant, foregoing other potential uses or secure investments.
* Unconscionability: It would be unconscionable for the Defendant to deny the loan’s existence or its terms after receiving such a substantial sum and making initial repayments, especially given the Plaintiff’s significant financial sacrifice and reliance.
* Result Reference: Even if a fully signed contract had not been established, Equity could “estop” the Defendant from retracting her representations regarding the loan, compelling her to honour the arrangement to prevent an unconscionable outcome for the Plaintiff.
* Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
* Benefit at your expense: The Defendant undoubtedly received a substantial benefit of $300,000 from the Plaintiff.
* Against conscience to retain without payment: If the contractual basis for repayment were somehow negated, it would be against good conscience for the Defendant to retain this benefit without restitution to the Plaintiff.
* Result Reference: The Court could order the restitution of the $300,000 to the Plaintiff based on unjust enrichment, or, if the funds could be traced to specific assets, impose a Constructive Trust over those assets to ensure the Plaintiff’s recovery.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds:
* Statute of Limitations: The general 6-year statutory limitation period for contract actions in New South Wales from the date the cause of action accrues. The Plaintiff’s claim was brought within this period.
* Contractual Certainty: The requirement that the terms of the agreement be sufficiently clear and certain to be enforceable. The draft loan agreement, found by the Court to be the operative contract, provided these necessary terms.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
* Statute of Limitations Expired?: If the limitation period had expired, extensions might be granted in very limited circumstances, such as for fraud or mistake, or if the debt was acknowledged in writing after the initial period.
* Lack of Formal Documentation: As decisively demonstrated in this case, the absence of a perfectly executed formal document (or a dispute over its signing) is not an absolute bar to enforcing a contract. A contract can be established through a compelling body of indirect evidence, including texts, emails, and consistent post-agreement conduct. This highlights that while formal documentation is undeniably preferred, its absence can be overcome, especially where credibility issues are resolved in favour of the party asserting the contract.
Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
* Establishing contract formation through a combination of textual communications (texts, emails), post-contractual conduct (payments), and a draft agreement, particularly where formal execution is disputed.
* The profound impact of witness credibility on factual findings in civil disputes, especially when oral testimony conflicts with contemporaneous documents.
* The application of adverse inferences (Jones v Dunkel) for failure to call relevant witnesses, such as a solicitor privy to key contractual documents.
* Situations where claims of contract variation lack supporting evidence of offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Citation Method:
As Positive Support: When your matter involves an informal loan or agreement where formal execution is disputed but there is strong circumstantial evidence (text messages, emails, conduct) supporting the existence and terms of a contract, citing Kempe v Grine [2025] NSWDC 227 can strengthen your argument.
As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasize the unique and severe credibility issues of the Defendant and her witnesses in Kempe v Grine to argue that the evidentiary context of your matter is significantly different, or that your evidence supporting variation or lack of agreement is far more robust and credible.
Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Plaintiff / Defendant.

Conclusion
This judgment powerfully illustrates that in the Australian legal system, substance often prevails over form. While formal documentation provides clarity, the true test of an agreement lies in the consistent conduct, credible testimony, and objective evidence reflecting the parties’ intentions. For anyone entering into financial arrangements, whether formal or informal, this case is a stark reminder: clarity, documentation, and integrity in communication are not merely good practice—they are the bedrock of legal enforceability. True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the District Court of New South Wales (Kempe v Grine [2025] NSWDC 227), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.