Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Goo v Sim [2022] NSWSC 420
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Goo v Sim [2022] NSWSC 420
"That money's for the business, not for you!"
___
If you'd like to contact me my please look for James d'Apice or Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite social media spot - I should pop up right away!
___
Ps claimed they paid $160K cash to D in connection with an online payment business: [3]
D said the $110K was appropriately spent on business expenses and D’s salary, and the $50K was for some units in a unit trust: [5]
The parties’ dealings were informal: a lack of documents, cash only payments, few bank records etc: [6]
One of the Ps facilitated currency exchanges and money transfers between Australia and Korea: [12]
A plan was hatched to expand that business to include online payments, with that work to be done by D: [19], [20], [32]
There was heavily contested evidence about the dealings before the venture kicked off: [34] - [45]
D gave the Ps advice on the Korean requirements for the venture, advising around 100 million Korean Won (~AUD$100K) would be needed: [46] - [49], [50], [53]
D was given $109K in cash from one of the P’s: [61]
On collection of the funds the D signed a “loan agreement” which they understood would later be destroyed: [64], [65], [67]
The funds were transferred to the Korean entity under D’s control, which was created to operate the venture: [69] - [72]
One of the Ps said they paid a further $50K from their safe to D to, the relevant P said, finish the venture: [80]
D denied receiving the $50K payment on that basis: [83], [84]
The venture never traded: [115], [116]
The Ps said D had breached various duties and sought the return of the $160K: [125], [127]
The Court found purpose of the payment of the $110K from the Ps to D was for the venture, and that D accepted the funds on behalf of the venture: [169], [170]
The Court found some, but not all, of the funds were used by D for the venture. Other funds were used for their own benefit e.g. to pay off personal credit cards: [191], [194]
No fiduciary obligations arose between the parties. The Ps had no special vulnerability giving rise to any: [201]
The Court considered no purposive Quistclose trust arose because the evidence showed the parties intended for the $110K to become part of the working capital of the Korean venture: [225]
Crucially, the Ps did not allege that the recipient of the $110K, the Korean entity, owed any obligations to repay any money: [228]
The evidence did not suggest D had stolen the money, meaning a Black v Freedman trust (where a third party who takes the benefit of stolen money must repay it) does not arise: [258]
Further, the D was not obliged to repay the $50K sum. This payment was found to be consideration for D transferring their units in a unit trust (which was done), not a payment made for the venture: [286]
The Ps’ claim was dismissed: [291]
View all episodes
By James d'Apice
5
22 ratings
"That money's for the business, not for you!"
___
If you'd like to contact me my please look for James d'Apice or Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite social media spot - I should pop up right away!
___
Ps claimed they paid $160K cash to D in connection with an online payment business: [3]
D said the $110K was appropriately spent on business expenses and D’s salary, and the $50K was for some units in a unit trust: [5]
The parties’ dealings were informal: a lack of documents, cash only payments, few bank records etc: [6]
One of the Ps facilitated currency exchanges and money transfers between Australia and Korea: [12]
A plan was hatched to expand that business to include online payments, with that work to be done by D: [19], [20], [32]
There was heavily contested evidence about the dealings before the venture kicked off: [34] - [45]
D gave the Ps advice on the Korean requirements for the venture, advising around 100 million Korean Won (~AUD$100K) would be needed: [46] - [49], [50], [53]
D was given $109K in cash from one of the P’s: [61]
On collection of the funds the D signed a “loan agreement” which they understood would later be destroyed: [64], [65], [67]
The funds were transferred to the Korean entity under D’s control, which was created to operate the venture: [69] - [72]
One of the Ps said they paid a further $50K from their safe to D to, the relevant P said, finish the venture: [80]
D denied receiving the $50K payment on that basis: [83], [84]
The venture never traded: [115], [116]
The Ps said D had breached various duties and sought the return of the $160K: [125], [127]
The Court found purpose of the payment of the $110K from the Ps to D was for the venture, and that D accepted the funds on behalf of the venture: [169], [170]
The Court found some, but not all, of the funds were used by D for the venture. Other funds were used for their own benefit e.g. to pay off personal credit cards: [191], [194]
No fiduciary obligations arose between the parties. The Ps had no special vulnerability giving rise to any: [201]
The Court considered no purposive Quistclose trust arose because the evidence showed the parties intended for the $110K to become part of the working capital of the Korean venture: [225]
Crucially, the Ps did not allege that the recipient of the $110K, the Korean entity, owed any obligations to repay any money: [228]
The evidence did not suggest D had stolen the money, meaning a Black v Freedman trust (where a third party who takes the benefit of stolen money must repay it) does not arise: [258]
Further, the D was not obliged to repay the $50K sum. This payment was found to be consideration for D transferring their units in a unit trust (which was done), not a payment made for the venture: [286]
The Ps’ claim was dismissed: [291]
More shows like Coffee and a Case Note
View all
Newshour
1,066 Listeners
Law Report
23 Listeners
Conversations
795 Listeners
All In The Mind
772 Listeners
The Economy, Stupid
25 Listeners
Politics Now
90 Listeners
NAB Morning Call
18 Listeners
Lawyers Weekly Podcast Network
1 Listeners
If You're Listening
314 Listeners
FT News Briefing
646 Listeners
Behind the Money
227 Listeners
Full Story
168 Listeners
15 Minutes with the Boss
8 Listeners
Chanticleer
14 Listeners
The Fin
18 Listeners