Australia, July 25 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 25:

1. Ms Nguyen (the plaintiff) claims that she made 2 loans to Mr Pham (the defendant), both of which he has failed to repay. She says that the first was a loan of $100,000 and the second a loan of $50,000.

2. Mr Pham denies borrowing or receiving any money from Ms Nguyen. He even denies knowing Ms Nguyen.

3. Ms Nguyen claims that she made the second loan to Mr Pham pursuant to a written loan agreement and an unregistered mortgage, both of which were signed by Mr Pham and said to have been witnessed by Mr Quang L Nguyen.

4. Mr Pham denies signing either document. He also denies signing a caveat at the same time. He called a handwriting expert to support his case.

5. Ms Nguyen is a beautician by occupation. Mr Pham is a real estate agent and justice of the peace. He has an office in Cabramatta.

6. Ms Nguyen, Mr Pham and Mr Quang L Nguyen each gave evidence by affidavit and were cross-examined. The handwriting expert provided a written report and also was cross-examined.

7. On Ms Nguyen's account of events, there was another person who played a central role in the transactions but did not give evidence to the court. She was variously referred to in the evidence as Diana, Kim and Bich. A copy of a "Photo Card" in evidence gave her full name as Kim Khanh Huynh. Ms Nguyen said her full name was Diana Kim Khanh Huynh. She also referred to her as "god sister", which she explained meant that their friendship had become very close. Mr Pham said he knew the same person as his tenant. I will refer to her either as Bich or Diana, as the parties mostly did. However it is important to understand that they are one and the same person.

A. THE PARTIES PLEADED CASES

8. Both parties verified their pleadings. As a consequence, Ms Nguyen swore in an affidavit that she believed the allegations of fact in her statement of claim were true; whilst Mr Pham affirmed that he believed that the allegations of fact in his defence were true and that the allegations of fact in the statement of claim he denied were untrue.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1978693840059561ed1f4066)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.