David Weedon v Paul Williams [2014] NSWDC 128

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: David Weedon v Paul Williams [2014] NSWDC 128 Hearing dates: 4-5 August 2014 Decision date: 14 August 2014 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Verdict and judgment for the Cross-Claimant. For orders see [41] Catchwords: Fraudulent representation in personal relationship; tort of deceit Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 Cases Cited: Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551 Texts Cited: Law of Torts, R P Balkin and JLR David, 4th Ed Category: Principal judgment Parties: David Weedon (Cross-Claimant) Paul Williams (Cross-Defendant) Representation: In person (Plaintiff) P Braham SC with D Steirn (Cross Claimant) Kennedy Partners File Number(s): 12/49802 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment ON CROSS-CLAIM

Introduction 1At the commencement of the hearing of this matter on 4 August 2014 the plaintiff consented to a verdict against him on his claim and the following orders were made by consent: (1)Verdict for the Defendant on the plaintiff's claim. (2)Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs of the proceedings. 2The defendant then proceeded on his cross-claim dated 9 July 2012. The gist of the cross-claim was that from 2004 the plaintiff had made false representations to the cross-claimant in respect of four separate fictitious persons to the effect, (but for various different reasons) that they were impecunious and had a need for money for various purposes. The representations in respect of three of the fictitious persons were made in 2010 and 2011. 3The cross-claimant claims that relying on those false representations, he paid monies to the cross-defendant believing those monies were to be paid on to the four other persons. 4The cross-claimant and the crossdefendant have known each other since 2003. They had never lived together and indeed lived in different States. However, the cross-claimant had bestowed significant generosity towards the cross-defendant, paying him a monthly allowance, purchasing an apartment for him to live in rent free and paying monies in respect of tuition fees for a tertiary degree the cross-defendant led him to believe he was undertaking. 5The cross-claimant is a prominent member of the medical profession and there is a disparity in the ages of the parties. During those years, they had from time to time, a sexual relationship, which became infrequent, and they also travelled together, usually at the request of the cross-claimant. 6It is the cross-claimant's claim that the plaintiff invented the names of the four young men so as to provoke sympathy in the cross-claimant. The cross-defendant was aware that the cross-claimant had provided financial support to other young people from time to time. The monies requested by the cross-defendant were for specific bequests and were supported by emails or text messages from phones purchased by the cross-defendant to give the appearance that these people existed. 7In respect of each of the four fictitious persons, the cross-defendant has admitted that he falsely represented to the cross-claimant that he had met each of the persons concerned. He has not admitted, but has not denied, the further false representations pleaded in respect of each person which are set out below. 8The cross-defendant filed a Defence to the Cross-Claim dated 20 July 2012. That document pleads, in respect of each of the four persons, that each person did not exist, and "that he told the cross-claimant about the existence of [that person] in order to stop the cross-claimant from pressuring the cross-defendant to find and encourage young men (over 18 years) to contact the cross-claimant for sex" (Defence to Cross-Claim paragraphs 1(d), 2(d) 3(d) and 5(d)). 9A number of claims set out in the cross-claim were not pressed, namely paragraphs 4 and 9-18.