Maaz v Fullerton Property Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 79

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Maaz v Fullerton Property Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 79 Hearing dates: 22 March 2021 Decision date: 07 May 2021 Before: Basten JA at [1]; Gleeson JA at [36]; Brereton JA at [37] Decision: (1) Dismiss the appeal from the judgment and orders in the District Court. (2) Order that the appellant pay Fullerton's costs in this Court. Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – payment claim by builder – false statutory declaration in support of payment claim – statement by builder that all subcontractors paid – claim paid by principal – principal liable to unpaid subcontractors – Contracts Debts Act 1997 (NSW), s 5 – proceedings against builder for moneys paid by principal directly to subcontractors EVIDENCE – admissibility – hearsay – exceptions – business records – where business records of subcontractor tendered to prove unpaid debt – whether authenticity of document may be determined on the basis of inferences drawn from its form, contents or source – whether production on subpoena necessary – provenance and accuracy of the documents not challenged EVIDENCE – admissibility – business records –records of a party – whether records of third party warrant discretionary exclusion – whether weight sufficient to establish deceit TORTS – deceit – misleading and deceptive conduct – false statutory declaration in support of payment claim – statement by builder that all subcontractors paid – statement known to be false – claim paid by principal – principal liable to unpaid subcontractors – loss suffered – payments to subcontractors recovered Legislation Cited: Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law, s 18 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) Contracts Debts Act 1997 (NSW), s 5 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 48, 69, 135, 166, 167, 183 Cases Cited: Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital [1980] 2 NSWLR 542 Asden Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dinoris (No 2) (2015) 235 FCR 382; [2015] FCA 1025 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) (2012) 207 FCR 448; [2012] FCA 1355 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 Capital Securities XV Pty Ltd (Formerly known as Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd) v Calleja (2018) NSWCA 26 Compafina Bank v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1982] 1 NSWLR 409 Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Young (No 3) (1990) 55 SASR 11; 3 ACSR 420 Duncan v R [2015] NSWCCA 84 Gregg v R [2020] NSWCCA 245 Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks (1957) 97 CLR 367; [1957] HCA 28 Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners (A Firm) (No 3) [2017] FCA 1045 Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd v Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 560; ATPR ¶41-175 Lancaster v R (2014) 44 VR 820; [2014] VSCA 333 Lin v State of Tasmania (2015) 252 A Crim R 64; [2015] TASCCA 13 Marra Developments Ltd and the Companies Act, Re [1979] 2 NSWLR 193 National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309; [1999] NSWSC 539 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170; [1992] HCA 66 Nicholson v R (1984) 12 A Crim R 231; 113 LSJS 125 Penrith City Council v Penrith Waste Services Pty Ltd [1995] NSWLEC 227 Ross McConnel Kitchen & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Ross (No 1) (1985) 1 NSWLR 233 State of Tasmania v Lin (2011) 225 A Crim R 1; [2011] TASSC 54 Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1984) 56 ALR 647; ATPR ¶40-483 Tubby Trout Pty Ltd v Sailbay Pty Ltd (1992) 42 FCR 595; 113 ALR 748 Vinidex Tubemakers Pty Ltd v Marshall (1981) 5 Petty Sessions Review 2414 Vitali v Stachnik [2001] NSWSC 303 Wormleaton v Thomas & Coffey Ltd (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1817 Texts Cited: Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence (Interim) (Report 26, 1985) Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence (Report 38, 1987) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tony Maaz (Appellant) Fullerton Property Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Hall (Solicitor) (Appellant) C Harris SC (Respondent)