11 Mar 2020
The applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case that employer funds were misappropriated or that the first respondent breached accounting obligations in a way that would give rise to a constructive trust over the property; the evidence did not support the serious allegation of fraud and the caveat is dismissed.
21 Nov 2018
The second application to annul under s 309(1)(a) is barred by principles of finality and res judicata because the identical contention had been previously heard and dismissed; no new evidence of fraud was produced to justify relitigation, and the applicant lacked standing to challenge the summary judgment after adjudication because the estate vests in the Official Assignee; additionally the Court would not exercise its discretion to permit the second application because of the applicant's unreasonable delay, concurrent Australian bankruptcy, and opposition by the Official Assignee supported…
8 Jul 2015
Recall on the ground of mistake was permissible limited to revisiting the costs order: the court found the evidence was consistent with mis-service caused by mistakes by both the process server and the person at the address, not proven fraud; accordingly the extant costs order was set aside and costs were ordered to lie where they fall while the substantive order setting aside the statutory demand remained undisturbed.
15 Apr 2015
The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed because the debtor failed to establish a cross-claim against the Rajans equal to or greater than the judgment debt that is genuinely triable; the debtor's evidence is inconsistent with contemporaneous solicitor documents and relies on unsworn or weak 'will say' statements, so the claim lacks sufficient strength to defeat the bankruptcy notice.
11 Feb 2015
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants merely sought to re-litigate issues already fully determined in New South Wales; they failed to establish a question of law of public or general importance or any appearance of miscarriage of justice, and the additional evidence would not have changed the outcome.
5 Jun 2014
Leave was refused because the proposed proceedings arise directly from the same dispute previously litigated, attempt to relitigate issues already finally determined, lack a prima facie case and therefore constitute an abuse of process falling within the existing s 88B restriction on the plaintiff.
18 Dec 2013
The High Court upheld the primary judge's factual findings that the insured had bled the brakes prior to the trip, that the brakes subsequently failed causing the accident, and that QBE failed to prove fraud or tampering; expert Barton was preferred to QBE's investigator on credibility and technical grounds; the only error was the use of an 11% interest rate where the prescribed rate in force for the period was 8.4%, so the appeal was allowed solely to correct the interest calculation and the judgment sum was adjusted accordingly.
10 May 2011
All causes of action advanced by the plaintiffs were dismissed: clause 9 did not create an enforceable transferable obligation without consideration; Ohiti Waitio 3A vesting and subsequent family deed were not procured by fraud and the evidence supported an innocent vesting/mistake and family agreement; claims in respect of Lindauer paintings and other taonga were not properly pleaded against these executors or raised on the correct factual/legal footing; alleged misapplication of estate funds for Lawn Road and other specific monetary claims either lacked evidential support or were statute‑ba…
25 Oct 2007
The caveat will not be removed pending further order because cancellation of the registered proprietor's contract may be a fraudulent artifice that would prejudice the substantive proceedings and Asher J's ability to grant specific performance; however, leave to join Lund as a defendant is granted despite delay because of the seriousness of fraud allegations and timing of events.
18 Jul 2007
Defendant failed to prove service of a compliant payment schedule within the statutory time and produced no transmission evidence; the Construction Contracts Act makes the unpaid claimed amount a debt recoverable under s23; the belated, unparticularised allegation of fraud does not constitute a specific defence or justify delaying summary judgment; accordingly summary judgment entered for plaintiff for the claimed debt (reduced) with interest.