Automotive Holdings Group Ltd v Prime Constructions Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1960

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Automotive Holdings Group Ltd v Prime Constructions Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1960 Hearing dates: 7, 11, 12 & 13 September, 6 October 2017 Date of orders: 20 December 2018 Decision date: 18 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Slattery J Decision: Plaintiff's claim dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to pay the third defendant's costs on the ordinary basis unless a special costs order is to be sought. Catchwords: RESTITUTION – unjust enrichment – defence of change of position – third defendant allows fraudster to use her identity to set up a bank account in a company name – fraudster arranges for funds stolen from the plaintiff to be paid into the bank account – fraudster directs the third defendant to pay monies out of the bank account to third parties and the third defendant complies – injunctions obtained to prevent further distribution of funds from the bank account – the funds paid to third parties are lost – plaintiff seeks restitution from the third defendant for the monies paid to the third parties – whether the third defendant has been unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense by the funds into the bank account – whether as a result of paying the funds out of the bank account the third defendant can avail herself of a defence of change of position – whether any change of position defence is unavailable due to the third defendant's participation in and knowledge of the fraudster's illegality.

DECEIT – tort of deceit – whether the third defendant participated in conduct together with the fraudster which misled the plaintiff in circumstances amounting to the tort of deceit – what parts of the fraudster's activities was the plaintiff aware. Cases Cited: Australian Financial Leasing Services Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560; [2014] HCA 14 Ballard v Multiplex [2012] NSWSC 426 Citigroup Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (2012) 82 NSWLR 391 Black v S Freedman & Co (1910) 12 CLR 105; [1910] HCA 58 David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant (2004) 59 NSWLR 678; [2004] NSWCA 140 Fischer v Nemeske Pty Ltd (2016) 257 CLR 615; [2016] HCA 11 Fistar v Riverwood Legion and Community Club Limited (2016) 91 NSWLR 732; [2016] NSWCA 81 Heperu Pty Ltd v Belle (2009) 76 NSWLR 230; [2009] NSWCA 252 Hill Industries Ltd v Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 380 Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 55; [2006] HCA 511 McKernan v Fraser (1931) 46 CLR 343; [1931] HCA 54 Miller v Miller (2011) 242 CLR 446; [2011] HCA 9 Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005; 97 ER 676 Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538; [1995] HCA 25 Perpetual Trustees Australia Ltd v Heperu Pty Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 195; [2009] NSWCA 84 Russell Gould Pty Ltd v Ramangkura (2014) 87 NSWLR 552; [2014] NSWCA 310 State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Swiss Bank Corporation (1995) 39 NSWLR 350 Sze Tu v Lowe (2014) 89 NSWLR 317; [2014] NSWCA 426 Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30; [1959] HCA 51 Wood v Balfour [2011] NSWCA 382 Texts Cited: P Birks, Unjust Enrichment (2nd ed, 2005, Oxford University Press) at 208-212; AS Burrows, The Law of Restitution (3rd ed, 2011, Oxford University Press) at 526) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Automotive Holdings Group Limited First Defendant: Prime Constructions Australia Pty Limited Second Defendant: National Australia Bank Limited (ACN 004 044 937) Third Defendant: Therese Ann Tsirekas Representation: Counsel: