Ling v Pang [2023] NSWCA 112

Ling v Pang [2023] NSWCA 112

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge did not err in refusing to draw a Jones v Dunkel inference against Mr Pang and did not err in finding that Mr Pang had not signed the Loan Agreements as a false witness to Ms Wang's signatures. It was not natural to expect Mr Pang to call Mr Zhuang, an unrelated party accused of the very forgery in issue. Mr Pang gave clear, unchallenged and plausible evidence that he would not have witnessed execution without seeing it occur, and the appellants' contrary evidence from Mr Tupou and Mr Hobden was of limited weight. The appellants also failed to prove the counterfactual necessary for causation, because evidence of what their solicitor would...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court, Equity Division, Decision in Ling V Beyond Development Group Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 685
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Finding of Fact' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'forged Signatures on Loan Agreements' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'causation and Loss' 'witnessing Execution of Documents by Justice of the Peace']
['appeals' 'evidence' 'consumer Law' 'negligence'] ['appeal From Finding of Fact' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'forged Signatures on Loan Agreements' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'causation and Loss' 'witnessing Execution of Documents by Justice of the Peace']

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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court, Equity Division, Decision in Ling V Beyond Development Group Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 685

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a Jones v Dunkel inference should be drawn against Mr Pang for failing to call Mr Zhuang to give evidence of an exculpatory conversation.' "Whether the primary judge erred in finding that Mr Pang did not sign the Loan Agreements as witness to Ms Wang's signatures and that Mr Pang's signatures were forged." "If Mr Pang had falsely purported to witness Ms Wang's signatures, whether the appellants established causation for loss or damage arising from misleading and negligent conduct."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge did not err in refusing to draw a Jones v Dunkel inference against Mr Pang and did not err in finding that Mr Pang had not signed the Loan Agreements as a false witness to Ms Wang's signatures. It was not natural to expect Mr Pang to call Mr Zhuang, an unrelated party accused of the very forgery in issue. Mr Pang gave clear, unchallenged and plausible evidence that he would not have witnessed execution without seeing it occur, and the appellants' contrary evidence from Mr Tupou and Mr Hobden was of limited weight. The appellants also failed to prove the counterfactual necessary for causation, because evidence of what their solicitor would...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']