2025/00326694
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 4/11/25 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 214.5 KB) |
| 10/2/26 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 321.1 KB) |
| 27/2/26 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 428.9 KB) |
| 2/3/26 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 714.4 KB) |
| 2/3/26 | Appellant |
Certification for Publication (PDF, 187.0 KB) |
| 2/3/26 | Respondent | Certification for Publication (PDF, 97.2 KB) |
| 11/3/26 | Appellant | Outline of Submissions (PDF, 220.5 KB) |
| 12/3/26 | Respondent | Submissions on Notice of Appeal (PDF, 241.8 KB) |
| 16/3/26 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 168.0 KB) |
CONTRACT – these proceedings result from the breakdown of a relationship between Ms Jill Kearney (Jill) and her son, Mr Simon Peter Kearney (Simon), over an ongoing dispute about money, on which Jill claims she depends to live in her retirement – that resulted in the commencement of these proceedings in 2023 when Jill sought possession of a commercial property at Kingsford Smith Street, Tamworth which she owns and has long leased to Simon and which Tamworth Poly Tanks Pty Ltd (TPT) occupies – the possession was resisted and in 2024 Simon and TPT filed a cross-claim by which they sought declaratory relief as to the lease and pursued payment of a claimed share in the proceeds of the 2007 sale of a property, Eumbra, of which Simon and his parents (Jill and Mr Peter Kearney) had been registered proprietors – Jill then also pursued the repayment of considerable sums she had loaned to Simon and companies associated with him over the years, together with unpaid interest – all that was claimed to be owed then being quantified to amount to $1,795,000 – the primary judge concluded that: (1) even though by her pleadings Jill did not pursue payment of unpaid rent, she had established that she was entitled to an order for possession; (2) TPT (as the first defendant) was ordered to repay its borrowings and interest; and (3) Mr Kearney (as the third defendant) was ordered to pay Jill $653,000 – whether the primary judge erred in finding that Simon was indebted to Jill pursuant to loan agreements without making a finding as to the existence of the particular loan agreements in circumstances where the evidence did not establish that the particular loan agreements existed – whether the primary judge erred in finding that Simon had not repaid $653,000 of the amounts advanced to him by Jill – whether the primary judge erred by implying a term that any loans were repayable on notice – whether the primary judge denied Simon procedural fairness and erred in rejecting the evidence of Simon insofar that the rejection was dependent on the finding concerning the discrepancy in the amount of cash left in a drawer.
Last updated: