The Disputes Tribunal has heard a claim made by a father against his daughter over $5000 he gave her. Photo / Stock Image
A woman was sent a menacing message from her father after she and her sisters cut contact with him in “distressing” circumstances.
“You will regret this,” he warned his daughter.
That same month, and after she had blocked him from being able to communicate with her, the man launched legal proceedings against his daughter in relation to $5000 he had earlier given her.
The man filed a claim with the Disputes Tribunal to recoup the money, which he argued had been a loan.
But she contended he gifted it to her for an overseas trip she took in 2023, and would not have taken the cash if she was expected to repay it.
Details of the disputed arrangement were laid bare in a recently released decision by the tribunal, which redacted the names of the people involved.
The man had given his daughter the money in two payments of $2500, with the pair agreeing it was for her two-week trip abroad.
He claimed the money was given as a loan, which was either going to be repaid when his daughter sold her car or by automatic payments, to start when she returned from holiday.
But the daughter told the tribunal that she believed the money was a gift as she was a student at the time, and had asked him for financial assistance.
She said she was not in a financial position to repay him.
“She noted that her father had previously gifted money to her older sisters to buy a car each and given other financial assistance to them,” the decision stated.
“[He] denied this and there was no evidence provided of a pattern or history of gifts to his daughters.”
The man provided copies of his bank statements showing the payments, which contained the reference “Dad”, not “loan” as he had indicated.
He stated he had text messages from early 2023 in which reference was made to the money being a loan, but he had not filed any such evidence to the tribunal.
At the hearing, held in May this year, the tribunal gave the man an opportunity to provide screenshots of any relevant communications to back up his claim but he said he had a new phone and would need to message his partner to send them.
The decision stated that evidence was not subsequently provided but the tribunal was unsure if the partner had received his message in time.
It was not willing to adjourn the hearing as the man had had three months since lodging the application to collate evidence, the tribunal ruled.
“Text evidence of an agreement to loan money is central to his claim and should have been anticipated as necessary,” it stated.
The daughter explained at the hearing that she and her sisters ceased all contact with their father in late 2024 and gave brief reasons for this, which were not detailed in the decision.
“She contends that this claim arises out of that decision to cease contact, which is clearly distressing for both parties.”
In evidence, the woman provided a screenshot of a text sent by her father in February this year, before she blocked him, which read “You will regret this”.
The tribunal noted that the father lodged his claim on February 27.
However, it could not make any inference about the meaning of that text, as it did not have any context of the wider conversation, if any, that it was part of.
The tribunal found that in cases such as this, there could be no default presumption that the money was paid as a loan rather than a gift, as there would be in a different sort of relationship, such as between flatmates, co-workers, or friends.
It was also necessary to determine whether there was any intention at the time to enter into a legal relationship by drawing up a loan agreement, however informal, and signing it.
The tribunal found there was no such legal intention and therefore any agreement was unenforceable.
“Not only is any agreement unenforceable, but I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the money paid was intended to be a loan at the time the payments were made,” tribunal referee Johanna Perfect wrote in the decision.
“It is entirely possible that [the father] did make clear that he expected the money to be paid back but it is equally possible that he told [his daughter] at the time that he would give her the money for the trip, as she contends.”
It appeared the man had also not enquired about repayments until he turned to the tribunal, despite saying he was reluctant to give his daughter that much money and was not in a position to gift it.
“While his failure to ask for the amount back in a timely manner does not necessarily negate his position that he expected to be repaid, as it is not uncommon for parents to not rigorously pursue loaned money, it also does not help his case.
“Similarly, the estrangement may have merely prompted him to ask for repayment via this forum, rather than prompted him to change his mind to ask for money back that had been a gift at the time, but there is just no proof either way and decisions have been made in the meantime that could have caused either party to renege on an earlier understanding.”
Accordingly, the man’s claim was dismissed.
Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 and is currently an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff covering crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.