Wayne Lum Young (Appellant) v Zorena Khan-Alexander (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0012

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Wayne Lum Young

Respondent(s)

Zorena Khan-Alexander

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err by: (1) Failing to give effect to a later contract, known as the “2014 agreement”, which allegedly remained a valid agreement. (2) Conducting an enquiry into sums paid under an earlier agreement, known as the “2007 agreement”, rather than acknowledging the 2014 superseded this agreement. (3) Failing to appreciate that section 11 of the Moneylenders Act was inapplicable to the 2014 agreement. (4) Failing to consider that, if the 2014 agreement was nevertheless non-compliant with section 11, then the Appellant was entitled to relief under the principles of unjust enrichment.

Facts

This appeal arises out of a loan for a disputed sum made by the Appellant to the Respondent on 14 September 2007. The Respondent alleges that she borrowed USD 200,000; but was forced to sign a blank piece of paper to which an alternative sum of USD 2,000,000 was written. After her and her family were threatened by a man employed by the Appellant’s son, on 12 June 2014 she agreed to repay USD 200,000. The Respondent alleges that an attempt was made to burn down her home, that she found an envelope with ten small brass cylindrical objects resembling ammunition on her premises and that, on 2 July 2014, following further threats, she signed an agreement for the sum of USD 1,500,000. The Appellant alleged that USD 2,000,000 was paid to the Respondent on 14 September 2007, that the Respondent did not meet the complete payment, and that there is an outstanding balance of USD 1,470,000. The trial judge found in the Respondent’s favour, in particular on the basis that the Appellant was an unreliable witness. Separately, the judge found that the Appellant was not a regulated money lender and had breached the Moneylenders Act. The Court of Appeal found in favour of the trial judge’s findings of fact, and dismissed the appeal. The Appellant now appeals before the Privy Council.