The appellants challenged a trial judgment requiring repayment of money advanced by the respondents for the purchase of land intended for a matrimonial home, arguing the transfer was a gift rather than a loan.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and conclusion that the funds were advanced as a loan repayable when the appellants became financially able to do so.
Although the trial judge had not expressly addressed when that repayment condition was satisfied in the main reasons, the appellate court relied on the later finding made in fixing pre-judgment interest and granted an amendment to the statement of claim to conform to the issue actually litigated.
The limitation defence failed because the cause of action arose only when the appellant became financially able to repay.
