Maaz v Fullerton Property Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 79

Maaz v Fullerton Property Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 79

The appeal was dismissed because the documents relied on by the trial judge were admissible business records or otherwise admissible records, their authenticity and application under s 69 could be inferred under s 183, there was no basis to exclude them under s 135, and they were capable of proving that the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment and Orders Dated 24 July 2020
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['payment Claims by Builder' 'false Statutory Declarations' 'business Records Exception to Hearsay' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'deceit' 'assessment of Loss' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence']
['building and Construction' 'evidence' 'torts' 'consumer Law'] ['payment Claims by Builder' 'false Statutory Declarations' 'business Records Exception to Hearsay' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'deceit' 'assessment of Loss' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence']

Source-derived case record

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 District Court Judgment and Orders Dated 24 July 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether business records of subcontractors and related documents were admissible to prove that subcontractors had not been paid by the builder.' 'Whether the documents should have been excluded in the exercise of discretion because they were third party records or because their makers were not called.' 'Whether the documents had sufficient weight to prove falsity and deceit to the requisite standard.' 'Whether Fullerton suffered loss where the building contract was a fixed price contract and there was no proof that the total development cost exceeded that price.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the documents relied on by the trial judge were admissible business records or otherwise admissible records, their authenticity and application under s 69 could be inferred under s 183, there was no basis to exclude them under s 135, and they were capable of proving that the subcontractors had not been paid when the appellant made the statutory declarations. Fullerton's loss was the payment to the builder that it would have withheld but for the false declarations and the later direct payments to subcontractors for the same work; the fixed price contract between Fullerton and the builder did not limit or negate the tortious and statutory loss claimed...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the appeal from the judgment and orders in the District Court.' "Order that the appellant pay Fullerton's costs in this Court."]