Konica Minolta Business Solutions Australia Pty Ltd v Vongkeneta [2013] NSWSC 486

Konica Minolta Business Solutions Australia Pty Ltd v Vongkeneta [2013] NSWSC 486

The first and second Defendants were served or reasonable attempts had been made to notify them, they had no apparently credible explanation for non-attendance, and it was appropriate to proceed in their absence. By their default they were deemed to admit the pleaded facts, and the Plaintiff's evidence established that the first Defendant caused unauthorised transfers totalling $3,638,572.20 from the Plaintiff's Wages account to the joint ANZ account of the first and second Defendants and to the second Defendant's ANZ account. Those facts entitled the Plaintiff to relief as money had and received by the first and second Defendants, and on the basis of the first Defendant's personal...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Claim for Money Judgment, Declarations of Trust or Charge Over Property, and Related Relief / Trial Proceeded Against the First and Second Defendants in Their Absence After No Appearance or Defence; Claim Against the Third Defendant Resolved by Consent
Outcome
Judgment and declarations were made for the Plaintiff against the first and second Defendants; consent orders and notations were made between the Plaintiff and the third Defendant; the proceedings against the third Defendant were stood over to the Registrar's list on 1 July 2013.
Legal Topics
['default and Deemed Admissions' 'trial in Absence of Party' 'money Had and Received' 'misapplication of Funds by Employee' 'constructive Trust or Charge Over Property' 'asset Freezing Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'restitution' 'trusts' 'property'] ['default and Deemed Admissions' 'trial in Absence of Party' 'money Had and Received' 'misapplication of Funds by Employee' 'constructive Trust or Charge Over Property' 'asset Freezing Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Division Claim for Money Judgment, Declarations of Trust or Charge Over Property, and Related Relief / Trial Proceeded Against the First and Second Defendants in Their Absence After No Appearance or Defence; Claim Against the Third Defendant Resolved by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial should proceed in the absence of the first and second Defendants.' 'Whether the first and second Defendants were in default and deemed to admit the allegations in the Statement of Claim.' 'Whether the Plaintiff proved that $3,638,572.20 was transferred without authority from its Wages account to accounts of the first and second Defendants.' 'Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to money judgment, interest, declarations, trust or charge relief against the first and second Defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first and second Defendants were served or reasonable attempts had been made to notify them, they had no apparently credible explanation for non-attendance, and it was appropriate to proceed in their absence. By their default they were deemed to admit the pleaded facts, and the Plaintiff's evidence established that the first Defendant caused unauthorised transfers totalling $3,638,572.20 from the Plaintiff's Wages account to the joint ANZ account of the first and second Defendants and to the second Defendant's ANZ account. Those facts entitled the Plaintiff to relief as money had and received by the first and second Defendants, and on the basis of the first Defendant's personal...

Court Disposition

Judgment and declarations were made for the Plaintiff against the first and second Defendants; consent orders and notations were made between the Plaintiff and the third Defendant; the proceedings against the third Defendant were stood over to the Registrar's list on 1 July 2013.

Orders

  • ['As against the first and second Defendants, orders were made in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 9 and 11, and declarations in terms of paragraphs 3, 6 and 8, of the Short Minutes of Order between the Plaintiff and the first and second Defendants dated 24 April 2013.' 'As between the Plaintiff and the third Defendant,...