Kris Borg-Oliver

The court considered whether the plaintiff's claim for repayment of loans to the defendant was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff and defendant were long-time friends, and the plaintiff loaned the defendant significant sums over several years.

The defendant did not dispute the loans or the amounts but argued the claim was out of time.

The court found the loans were not demand loans, and the limitation period was not suspended by part payments or acknowledgments made after the period expired.

The court concluded the claim was statute-barred and dismissed the action, despite finding the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits.

The plaintiff, Maurizio Sprovieri, sought summary judgment for repayment of loans totaling $314,278.52, including interest, made to the defendant, James Christopher Demetriou.

The defendant did not dispute the existence or amount of the loans but argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff contended the claim was not discoverable until after June 8, 2019, due to the defendant’s representations that repayment depended on the outcome of a separate lawsuit.

The court found a conflict in the evidence regarding these representations and directed the issue to proceed to a mini trial.

The applicants brought an application for damages and an accounting arising from an alleged breach of contract relating to referral fees between two law firms.

The matter was forwarded to the judge for determination in writing, having been incorrectly treated as a consent or unopposed motion.

Upon reviewing the full record, including the respondent's opposing materials, the judge concluded that a disposition based on the written record was not appropriate due to material facts in dispute and legal issues requiring a hearing or trial.

The matter was returned to Civil Practice Court for scheduling.