The Court held that the deceased accountant's cash journal entries, while not evidence of the truth of their contents, formed part of a broader evidentiary mosaic — including the defendants' receipt and repayment of funds, silence in the face of demand letters, and a signed Centrelink document — sufficient to establish a single loan on the balance of probabilities, distinguishing Manzi v Smith where the claim rested solely on books of account. The claim for 10% contractual interest failed because the evidence showed variable rates were applied over time and no specific rate was proved, but pre-judgment interest under s 100 CPA was awarded from the date of formal demand. Where neither debtor nor creditor effectively appropriated repayments, the rule in Falk v Haugh applied so that payments were treated as going to interest in priority over principal, and ongoing repayments constituted confirmation under s 54 of the Limitation Act defeating the time bar defence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.