Kempe v Grine [2025] NSWDC 227: Was the $300,000 advanced a loan or a gift, and were its terms, including the 20% interest rate, validly varied?

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 loan
Judgment Date: 23 June 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Loan Agreement
Keyword 3: Contractual Variation
Keyword 4: Witness Credibility
Keyword 5: Contemporaneous Documentation
Keyword 6: Quantum of Damages

Background:

The Plaintiff brought proceedings seeking recovery of a $300,000 loan made to the Defendant in December 2018. The loan agreement, drafted by the Defendant’s then-accountant, stipulated an interest rate of 20% per annum. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant defaulted on the loan by failing to pay interest as required and by not repaying the principal by the due date.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The central dispute revolved around whether the $300,000 advanced by the Plaintiff was a loan or a gift. If it was a loan, the parties further disputed whether a valid contract existed, whether its terms (particularly the 20% interest rate) were subsequently varied, and the accurate calculation of the outstanding amount, including interest. The Plaintiff claimed the full principal plus 20% interest, while the Defendant denied any money was due, or alternatively, argued for a significantly reduced repayment amount based on alleged variations or the money being a gift.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between the Plaintiff, Ms Bridget Anne Kempe, and the Defendant, Ms Rosa Grine, began against a backdrop of personal challenges for the Plaintiff. In 2018, Ms Kempe was undergoing a difficult divorce and property settlement, necessitating her move from her home. A significant sum of $300,000, representing her entire property settlement proceeds, became central to the subsequent transaction. Further, Ms Kempe was concerned for her brother, Paul Sylvester, who had been residing with Ms Grine until his death in May 2018. Following her brother’s passing, Ms Kempe stayed with Ms Grine for two consecutive weekends in June 2018.

At this time, Ms Grine operated a business called “Happi Chicken” and had been exploring a partnership for “Happi Kitchen” services, an agreement for which was drafted by Mr Cyril Quek, Ms Grine’s accountant and Chief Financial Officer for the corporate entities. When Ms Grine’s proposed partnership fell through in November 2018, she approached Ms Kempe, who was then working at Ms Grine’s restaurant, seeking a loan. Ms Grine was aware of Ms Kempe’s recent property settlement and her access to funds.

Initially, Ms Grine sought $120,000. During discussions, Ms Grine suggested, “Perhaps gifting the money would be better.” However, on 30 November 2018, Ms Kempe explicitly stated, “I’ll loan you the money if we have a contract drawn up,” to which Ms Grine agreed, promising to organise it and send her bank details. Text messages exchanged confirmed Mr Quek was drafting the contract. On 30 November, Ms Kempe transferred $300,000 into her own bank account, acquiring a bank cheque for Ms Grine the next day, in anticipation of the loan agreement. On 2 December 2018, Ms Grine emailed Ms Kempe a draft loan agreement prepared by Mr Quek. Ms Kempe, after reading and verifying the terms were consistent with the draft, met Ms Grine and Mr Quek at Ms Grine’s home, where she says both parties signed the agreement. Ms Kempe then handed over the $300,000 bank cheque, expecting a signed copy, which was never provided. This transfer of funds and the subsequent lack of a signed document became the decisive moment leading to the eventual litigation, as the Defendant later sought to repudiate or vary the terms.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Plaintiff’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The Plaintiff’s case was primarily built on:
* Contemporaneous Text Messages: Exchanges with the Defendant and Mr. Quek on 30 November 2018, explicitly discussing a “loan” and “contract.”
* Draft Loan Agreement: Emailed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on 2 December 2018, detailing a $300,000 loan, 20% interest, and repayment terms.
* Bank Cheque: Proof of the $300,000 transfer to the Defendant on 1 December 2018.
* Plaintiff’s Testimony: Clear, consistent account of the agreement, signing the contract, and handing over the cheque.
* Post-Contractual Payments: Evidence of 15 weekly cash payments made by the Defendant, close to the 20% interest stipulated, and later irregular bank payments totalling $23,915.
* Letters of Demand: Formal demands from Sparke Helmore Lawyers, clearly setting out the Plaintiff’s claim and the terms of the loan.

Defendant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The Defendant’s defence rested on:
* Denial of Signed Contract: Claiming the contract was never signed or agreed to.
* Claim of Gift: Asserting the $300,000 was a gift, not a loan.
* Alleged Contractual Variation: Arguing the interest rate was reduced from 20% to 5% by agreement, or that free board and lodging constituted consideration for a waiver of repayment.
* Destruction of Documents: Attributing the lack of banking records and contractual documents to a house fire.
* Accountant’s Testimony: Evidence from Linda Day and Jasmine Day, who claimed not to have seen the original contract, disputed the 20% interest rate as “ridiculous” and “illegal,” and provided an amortization schedule favourable to the Defendant.
* Solicitor’s Letter: A letter from Smyth Turner Wall stating the interest rate was agreed at 5% and the 20% rate was “illegal.”

Core Dispute Points:

1. Nature of the Advance: Was the $300,000 a loan or a gift?
2. Contract Formation: Was a valid, binding loan agreement entered into between the parties, particularly given the dispute over signatures?
3. Contractual Terms: Specifically, was the 20% interest rate agreed upon, or was it subsequently varied to 5%?
4. Repayment & Quantum: What payments were actually made by the Defendant, and how should they be allocated (principal vs. interest)? What is the correct total sum owed?
5. Witness Credibility: The reliability of the Plaintiff’s testimony versus the Defendant’s and her accountants’ accounts.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The affidavits in this case were crucial in shaping the Court’s understanding of the factual matrix, but also became a significant point of contention regarding credibility. The Plaintiff’s affidavit provided a clear, linear narrative of the loan’s inception, terms, and the subsequent lack of full repayment, supported by contemporaneous documents like text messages and the draft loan agreement. Her account remained consistent under cross-examination, making concessions where appropriate, which strengthened her credibility.

In stark contrast, the Defendant’s affidavits, and particularly those of her accountants, Linda Day and her daughter Jasmine Day, presented substantial problems. The affidavits of Linda Day and Jasmine Day were “word for word identical apart from those portions dealing with their separate responsibilities in the transactions.” This highly unusual similarity, explored extensively during cross-examination, led to implausible explanations from Linda Day, such as claiming they “thought alike” or had “similar mindsets.” This pattern in the affidavits, rather than constructing a persuasive legal statement, severely undermined the credibility of the Defendant’s key witnesses.

The strategic intent behind the Judge’s procedural directions, particularly the emphasis on direct examination and cross-examination, was to meticulously test the veracity of these conflicting affidavit statements. By comparing written testimony with oral evidence and contemporaneous documentation, the Court sought to identify inconsistencies and untruths. The Judge’s focus on the identical nature of the accountants’ affidavits revealed a strategic misstep by the Defendant, as it suggested a prepared script rather than independent recollection, ultimately leading to their evidence being disregarded. The Court carefully observed how each party used their affidavit to construct their version of events, but ultimately determined that the Defendant’s witnesses’ attempt to align their narratives too perfectly, rather than bolstering their case, exposed a fundamental flaw in their evidentiary strategy.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the Court’s proceedings included standard civil litigation arrangements to manage the dispute. Although the judgment does not detail specific interlocutory orders or directions for procedural steps such as discovery or mediation, it is evident that a structured process was followed. This involved the filing of a Statement of Claim by the Plaintiff and a Defence by the Defendant, and the subsequent filing of affidavits by both parties and their witnesses. The hearing itself spanned several days, from 2-4 June and 13 June 2025, indicating the Court provided ample opportunity for both sides to present their cases, including cross-examination of witnesses. The Judge also granted an adjournment part-heard to allow the self-represented Defendant to provide further submissions in reply, demonstrating a commitment to procedural fairness. These arrangements ensured that the factual matrix and legal arguments were thoroughly explored before the final determination.

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

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration:

The courtroom became the arena for a decisive clash of evidence and credibility. Central to this was the cross-examination of Linda Day and her daughter Jasmine Day, the Defendant’s accountants. The Judge meticulously probed their testimony, which began to unravel under scrutiny. Linda Day made numerous contradictory statements, such as claiming the Plaintiff was present at a meeting she later admitted she was not, and conflating various discussions. Most damningly, she insisted she had “never seen” the original loan agreement drafted by Mr Quek, despite email correspondence (CB 133-134) proving she had received and commented on a “draft Loan Agreement” from the Defendant’s solicitor, Ms McAllister, in February 2019. She also downplayed the plaintiff’s solicitor’s letters of demand as “vague claims from different solicitors,” despite them being clear and from a single firm, receiving only one inadequate response. Her daughter, Jasmine Day, largely corroborated her mother’s inconsistencies, including the suspiciously identical phrasing in their affidavits, for which Linda Day offered the implausible explanation that they “thought alike.”

Core Evidence Confrontation:

The confrontation between Linda Day’s oral testimony and the contemporaneous emails she exchanged with Ms McAllister was pivotal. Linda Day had testified that she immediately considered the 20% interest rate “ridiculous” and a “money laundering position,” claiming she told Mr Quek it would “not fly” due to Division 7A tax issues. Yet, her email to Ms McAllister merely queried whether the interest rate was 5.5% or 16.84% for unsecured commercial finance, showing no outrage or legal challenge. This directly contradicted her later assertions about the illegality or unreasonableness of high-interest loans. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s consistent account, supported by text messages and the bank cheque, detailed a clear agreement for a loan at 20% interest, which was bolstered by the Defendant’s initial 15 weekly cash payments that aligned closely with that rate. The Defendant’s inability to produce a signed contract or any documentation supporting a variation, citing a house fire, contrasted sharply with the Plaintiff’s consistent and documented narrative.

Judicial Reasoning:

The facts rigorously drove the Court’s decision. The Judge formed their decision based on the objective chain of evidence and the stark contrast in witness credibility. The Plaintiff’s candid and consistent testimony, supported by clear contemporaneous documents (texts, emails, bank records, and the initial cash payments), stood in firm opposition to the Defendant’s shifting narrative and her witnesses’ implausible and contradictory evidence. The absence of Ms McAllister, the Defendant’s former solicitor who had communicated about the draft loan agreement, led the Court to draw a Jones v Dunkel inference, concluding her evidence would not have assisted the Defendant.

The Court determined that the Defendant’s and her accountants’ evidence was unreliable and inconsistent with the documented history.

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

“The defendant was a similarly unreliable witness. Her claims of not having any documents are hard to credit when it is clear that she would have been aware of the need to provide this material from the date the plaintiff’s solicitors first wrote to her.”

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

These statements were determinative as they fundamentally rejected the core of the Defendant’s defence, leaving her without credible support for claims of a gift or contract variation. The Judge’s assessment of the Plaintiff’s honesty and the reliability of her evidence, coupled with the critical failure of the Defendant’s witnesses, established a clear evidentiary path to judgment.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court, after carefully weighing all the evidence and arguments presented, issued the following final orders:

1. Judgment for the Plaintiff for the sum of $593,666.21.
2. Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s costs.
3. Liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs.

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

Special Analysis:

This case underscores the critical importance of contemporaneous documentation and witness credibility in contract disputes, especially when oral agreements or variations are claimed. The Defendant’s claims of document destruction due to a house fire, while plausible in isolation, were undermined by the failure to obtain banking records from her bank or for her accountants to produce correspondence that clearly contradicted their oral testimony. The strong judicial finding on the unreliability of the Defendant and her accountants, Linda Day and Jasmine Day, provides a stark reminder that even a partial loss of documents does not absolve a party from the burden of proving their case with credible evidence. The application of the Jones v Dunkel inference for the uncalled solicitor, Ms McAllister, further demonstrates how a party’s failure to call a relevant witness, without adequate explanation, can weaken their case. The Judge’s decision to award the Plaintiff the lower sum she claimed, despite calculating a higher entitlement, highlights the Court’s appreciation for honesty and reasonable conduct in litigation, demonstrating a judicial discretion that goes beyond strict numerical calculation when assessing credibility.

Judgment Points:

1. Contract Formation through Conduct: The Court’s finding that a contract existed, even if not definitively proven to be signed by both parties, based on post-contractual conduct (initial cash payments) is a significant point. This demonstrates that actions speak louder than words, or indeed, lack of words (signatures), when it comes to forming binding agreements.
2. Credibility as Decisive Factor: The Judge’s explicit rejection of the Defendant’s and her accountants’ credibility, labeling their evidence as “unsatisfactory,” “implausible,” and “false,” was central to the outcome. This highlights that judicial assessment of witness honesty is paramount in cases with conflicting oral evidence.
3. Contradictions in Testimony vs. Documents: The stark discrepancies between Linda Day’s oral evidence and her contemporaneous email correspondence with Ms McAllister proved fatal to the Defendant’s claims of contract variation and challenges to the interest rate. This demonstrates the superior weight given to written, contemporaneous evidence over later, contradictory oral accounts.

Legal Basis:

The Judge referred to several legal principles to resolve evidentiary contradictions and determine liability:
* Contract Formation: Principles of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations, as established in common law. The Court applied the principle that a contract can be binding even without a signature if the parties’ conduct demonstrates agreement to its terms:

“Even if I were satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to find that the loan agreement was in fact signed by the parties, it is clear from their conduct that they reached agreement on 2 December 2018 that the loan was to be on the terms set out in the agreement drafted by Mr Quek. The parties’ actions confirm their acceptance of those terms and absence of a signature in such circumstances would not mean that no contract was in existence: PRA Electrical Pty Ltd v Perseverance Exploration Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 310; 20 VR 487.”
This was crucial for overcoming the Defendant’s denial of a signed agreement.
* Contractual Variation: The legal requirements for a valid contract variation, including certainty of terms, offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration, were strictly applied. The Defendant’s vague claims of waivers or reductions, lacking consideration, were rejected:
“For a variation to be contractually binding, the variation must satisfy all the legal requirements to form a valid contract, including certainty of terms, proof of offer and acceptance and the provision of valuable consideration. The defendant’s vague references to agreements by the plaintiff to waive some or all of her entitlements fail to establish that any such variation ever was suggested, let alone that it occurred, and no consideration of any kind was provided: W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd v Laureen Margaret Mayo [2013] NSWSC 1063 at [163].”
* Inference from Post-Contractual Conduct: The Court relied on established authority that post-contractual conduct can be used to establish that a contract was entered into:
“There is a pattern of repayment in the form of 15 cash payments to the plaintiff in a manner which supports the content of clause 3 of the contract concerning the interest rate, in that they amount to making payments as stipulated by that clause. This evidence of post-contractual conduct establishes that a contract was entered into: see the decision is referred to in Esanda Finance Corporation Limited v Atanasivska [2014] NSWDC 169 at [29].”
* Jones v Dunkel Inference: Applied due to the Defendant’s failure to call her former solicitor, Ms McAllister, who had relevant knowledge about the contract.
* Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936: The Judge correctly clarified that Division 7A primarily concerns minimum interest rates for loans from private companies to associated persons to prevent tax avoidance, not a prohibition on high-interest rates. This rebutted the Defendant’s accountants’ “illegal” claims.

Evidence Chain:

The Plaintiff’s victory was built upon a strong, unbroken chain of objective evidence:
* Pre-contractual Discussions: Text messages clearly indicating an intention for a “loan” and a “contract.”
* Contract Drafting: The draft loan agreement, emailed by the Defendant, detailed precise terms, including the 20% interest rate and an option for the Plaintiff to convert the loan into a 35% shareholding.
* Fund Transfer: The bank cheque for $300,000, unequivocally transferring the funds to the Defendant.
* Post-contractual Actions: The Defendant’s initial 15 weekly cash payments, consistent with the stipulated 20% interest, providing strong proof of accepted terms.
* Defendant’s Accountants’ Internal Correspondence: The emails between Linda Day and Ms McAllister, contradicting Linda Day’s oral testimony regarding her knowledge of the contract and the interest rate.

Judicial Original Quotation:

The Judge’s critical assessment of the Defendant’s witnesses directly impacted the outcome:

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

This decisive finding highlights the complete failure of the Defendant’s key witnesses to present a believable account.

“I am comfortably satisfied that this schedule is false from beginning to end and that Linda Day prepared it to help the defendant, knowing that many of the entries were based on speculation at best and that some of them (such as the $400 per week and the interest rate of 5%) were false.”

This statement from the Judge regarding Linda Day’s amortization schedule was determinative as it directly dismantled the Defendant’s primary financial defence, revealing a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.

“The defendant was a similarly unreliable witness. Her claims of not having any documents are hard to credit when it is clear that she would have been aware of the need to provide this material from the date the plaintiff’s solicitors first wrote to her.”

This finding underscored the Defendant’s overall lack of credibility and the inadequacy of her defence, which relied on unproven assertions and unsubstantiated excuses for missing evidence.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The Defendant’s failure stemmed from multiple critical weaknesses:
* Lack of Credibility: The Judge found both the Defendant and her accountants, Linda Day and Jasmine Day, to be unreliable witnesses. Their contradictory statements, implausible explanations (e.g., identical affidavits, not seeing the contract despite email proof), and evasiveness under cross-examination shattered their credibility.
* Insufficient Evidentiary Support: The Defendant failed to produce any documentation supporting her claims of a gift, a contract variation to 5% interest, or the alleged consideration for such variations. The excuse of a house fire was not accepted as a reason for failing to obtain readily available bank records or account for other crucial correspondence.
* Inconsistency with Contemporaneous Records: The Defendant’s oral claims and her accountants’ testimony were directly contradicted by contemporaneous text messages, emails, and the Defendant’s own initial post-contractual payments.
* Failure to Call Key Witness: The decision not to call Ms McAllister, the Defendant’s solicitor who was involved in the contract discussions and correspondence, led to an adverse inference under Jones v Dunkel, suggesting her evidence would not have helped the Defendant’s case.
* Misunderstanding of Legal Principles: The Defendant’s and her accountants’ claims that a 20% interest rate was “illegal” or constituted “money laundering” demonstrated a misunderstanding of contract law and Division 7A tax provisions, which was swiftly corrected by the Court.

Reference to Comparable Authorities:

• Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153: This case reinforces that a contract can be varied by conduct and established by inference or implication, even without formal documentation.
• Douglas v Mickhael & Ors [2023] NSWSC 979: Cited for the principle that highly similar or identical affidavits from multiple witnesses undermine the credibility of both, leading to rejection of their evidence.
• E1 v E2; E Pty Limited v E2 [2023] NSWDC 411: Referenced regarding considerations for gross sum costs orders, particularly concerning pro bono representation.
• Esanda Finance Corporation Limited v Atanasivska [2014] NSWDC 169: Confirms that a pattern of repayment or post-contractual conduct can establish contract formation.
• Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd v Ultimate Franchising Group Pty Ltd (Final Hearing) [2023] FCA 420: Critical of “cut and paste” affidavits, similar to those presented by the Defendant’s accountants in this case.
• New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Diab [2015] NSWCA 133: Supports the principle that contract variation can be established by conduct, inference, or implication.
• PRA Electrical Pty Ltd v Perseverance Exploration Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 310; 20 VR 487: An authority for the proposition that the absence of a signature does not necessarily mean no contract exists, as conduct can confirm acceptance of terms.
• W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd v Laureen Margaret Mayo [2013] NSWSC 1063: Emphasises that for a contract variation to be binding, it must satisfy all legal requirements, including the provision of valuable consideration.

Implications

1. Document Everything: Always ensure formal agreements are in writing and signed. Oral agreements, especially when large sums of money are involved, carry significant evidentiary risk.
2. Maintain Records: Keep meticulous financial records and correspondence related to any financial transaction or agreement. Digital copies are often as vital as physical ones.
3. Credibility is Key: In litigation, your honesty and consistency are your greatest assets. Contradictory statements or attempts to mislead the Court can severely damage your case.
4. Professional Advice Matters: Ensure all legal and financial advice is sound and that your advisors act in your best interests, based on complete information. Question advice that seems “too good to be true” or deviates from common practice.
5. Seek Timely Enforcement: Do not delay in seeking legal recourse if a contractual obligation is breached. Timely letters of demand and legal action strengthen your position and demonstrate commitment to upholding the agreement.

Q&A Session

Q1: What exactly constitutes “post-contractual conduct” and why was it so important in this case?
A1: Post-contractual conduct refers to the actions taken by parties after an alleged agreement has been made. In this case, it included the Defendant’s initial 15 weekly cash payments to the Plaintiff. This conduct was crucial because, even though the Defendant disputed signing the contract, her actions in making payments consistent with the 20% interest rate stipulated in the draft agreement strongly indicated that she had, in fact, accepted those terms. It showed the Court that the parties were operating under the contract, regardless of the signature dispute.

Q2: How did the “identical affidavits” of the Defendant’s accountants harm her case?
A2: When multiple witnesses provide affidavits that are word-for-word identical, especially on complex or detailed matters, it raises significant concerns about their independence and the authenticity of their recollection. The Court viewed this as a strong indicator that the affidavits were not genuine, independently drafted accounts but rather a coordinated, scripted narrative. This severely undermined the credibility of both accountants, leading the Judge to disregard their entire evidence, leaving a large hole in the Defendant’s defence.

Q3: The Judge noted that the Plaintiff’s requested judgment sum was lower than what the Judge calculated was owed. Why did the Judge award the lower, requested sum?
A3: The Judge awarded the lower sum requested by the Plaintiff ($593,666.21) even though a higher amount ($651,619.24) could have been claimed based on the contract’s terms and the Court’s calculations. This decision was explicitly made to the benefit of the Defendant and was stated by the Judge as a reflection of the Plaintiff’s honesty and candour during the proceedings. It demonstrates judicial discretion where a party shows restraint or makes concessions, reinforcing the Court’s positive assessment of the Plaintiff’s credibility.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Civil Litigation – Commercial Law (Loan Contract Dispute)
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This case falls under Civil Litigation and Commercial Law, specifically concerning contract formation, terms, and variations.

Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Core Test:
* Has the Limitation Period expired? For simple contracts in New South Wales, the limitation period is generally 6 years from the date the cause of action accrues (e.g., the date of breach or the date repayment was due). In this case, the principal was repayable on 1 December 2022, and proceedings were filed on 17 July 2024, well within the limitation period.
* Does the Court have Jurisdiction over the matter? The District Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction for civil claims up to $750,000, which covers the principal amount and accrued interest in this case.
* Has the duty of Discovery/Disclosure of evidence been satisfied? Parties have an ongoing duty to discover and disclose all documents relevant to the issues in dispute. The Defendant’s inability to produce key documents, purportedly due to a house fire, and failure to obtain them from alternative sources (e.g., bank statements from the bank itself) was a significant weakness in her case.

Commercial Law and Corporate Law

Core Test (Contract Formation):
* Offer: Was there a clear proposal by one party to another? The Defendant’s request for a loan and later providing the draft agreement constituted the offer.
* Acceptance: Did the other party unequivocally agree to the terms of the offer? The Plaintiff’s agreement to the terms, signing (as found by the Court), and transferring the $300,000 bank cheque, demonstrated acceptance.
* Consideration: Was something of value exchanged between the parties? The Plaintiff providing $300,000 (the loan) and the Defendant agreeing to repay it with 20% interest and offering shareholding as security, served as mutual consideration.
* Intention to create legal relations? Did the parties intend for their agreement to be legally binding? The drafting of a formal “Loan Agreement” by an accountant and the significant sum involved strongly pointed to a legal intention.

Core Test (Contractual Variation):
* A variation itself must meet the elements of contract formation: offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention. Claims of variation (e.g., reduction of interest rate) need to be clearly evidenced. The Defendant’s claims of variation failed due to lack of evidence and consideration.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

If dealing with Civil / Commercial / Property matters:

• Promissory Estoppel:
  • Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation? If the Plaintiff had, for instance, explicitly promised to waive the interest or consider the money a gift in exchange for specific actions, this element might be met. However, in this case, the Plaintiff consistently maintained it was a loan.
  • Did you act in detrimental reliance on that promise? The Defendant argued that the free board and lodging provided to the Plaintiff and her family might constitute reliance on a varied agreement. However, these claims were vague and not linked to specific promises or detrimental reliance sufficient to establish estoppel.
  • Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile from that promise? Given the Court’s finding that no clear promise of variation or gift was made by the Plaintiff, it would not be unconscionable for the Plaintiff to enforce the original loan terms.
  • Result Reference: Promissory estoppel could be a path for a party to seek relief if a clear promise was made and relied upon, even without formal contractual consideration. However, the Defendant’s case lacked a credible promise from the Plaintiff.
• Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
  • Has the other party received a benefit at your expense? Is it against conscience for them to retain that benefit without payment? The Defendant received $300,000 from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff successfully argued that retaining this benefit without full repayment (principal plus agreed interest) would constitute unjust enrichment. There was no basis for the Defendant to claim unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff given the Court found a valid loan agreement existed.
  • Result Reference: While the Court found a valid contract, if the contract had been deemed unenforceable (e.g., for technical reasons), a claim for unjust enrichment could have been an alternative route for the Plaintiff to recover the advanced funds, arguing it would be unconscionable for the Defendant to retain the principal without repayment.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds:
* 6-year statute of limitations for contract: As noted, the Plaintiff’s claim was initiated within this period. This is a hard threshold for civil contract claims in New South Wales.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
* Civil Litigation – Limitation period expired? Extensions may be granted in specific circumstances, such as cases of latent damage where the plaintiff was unaware of the cause of action, or for persons under legal incapacity (e.g., minors). This was not relevant in Kempe v Grine, but it is a critical consideration for parties contemplating legal action.
* Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the 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:
* The enforceability of loan agreements based on conduct, even without a signature.
* The weight given to contemporaneous documents versus contradictory oral testimony in assessing witness credibility.
* The requirements for valid contractual variations, especially the need for clear offer, acceptance, and consideration.
* The application of the Jones v Dunkel inference for uncalled witnesses.

Citation Method:
* As Positive Support: When your matter involves an unsigned contract that can be proven by post-contractual conduct, or when you are challenging the credibility of opposing witnesses based on contradictions with contemporaneous documents, citing Kempe v Grine can strengthen your argument. For example, if you have a strong paper trail but an opponent denies a contract or its terms, this case supports the judicial reliance on actions and consistent documentation.
* As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case to argue for strict adherence to written terms, you should emphasize the uniqueness of the current matter if there are clear and credible documented variations, or if the post-contractual conduct genuinely points away from the original written terms, to argue that this precedent is not applicable.
Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Plaintiff / Defendant or Appellant / Respondent.

Conclusion
This case of Kempe v Grine serves as a powerful testament to the adage that honesty and clear, documented evidence are paramount in legal disputes. It demonstrates that the Court will rigorously scrutinise witness credibility, weighing oral testimony against the objective truth revealed by contemporaneous records and consistent conduct. In the intricate dance of litigation, where claims and counter-claims often blur the lines of truth, a disciplined adherence to facts and a truthful presentation of evidence lay the unshakeable foundation for victory. Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: 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.