Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Westmeat Development Pty Ltd

[2025] NSWSC 655

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Westmeat Development Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 655

Hearing dates:

6, 27 May 2025

Decision date:

24 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Corporations List

Before:

Black J

Decision:

Determination that the charges of contempt against the Tenth Defendant are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE – Contempt, attachment and sequestration – Contempt of court – Where court makes freezing order and orders disclosure affidavits

– False invoices to obtain payments purportedly under exception for business expenses – Breach of freezing orders.

Legislation Cited:

- Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) r 13

- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 40.6

Cases Cited:

- Advan Investments Pty Ltd v Dean Gleeson Motor Sales Ltd [2003] VSC 201

- Anderson v Hassett [2007] NSWSC 1310

- Attorney-General for Tuvalu v Philatelic Distribution Corporation Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 926

- Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Sigalla (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 1076

- Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98; [1986] HCA 46

- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Hughes [2001] FCA 38

- BCEG International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Xiao [2023] NSWSC 57

- Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Salvato (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 321

- Eshow v Zaia [2020] NSWCA 10

- Fortune Holding Group Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 2) [2017] VSC 738

- Huang v Liao [2022] NSWSC 347

- Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2015) 238 FCR 209; (2015) 333 ALR 713; [2015] FCA 1275

- Jorgensen v Fair Work Ombudsman (2019) 271 FCR 461; [2019] FCAFC 113

- Mahaffy v Mahaffy (2018) 97 NSWLR 119; [2018] NSWCA 42

- Markisic v Commonwealth of Australia (2007) 69 NSWLR 737; [2007] NSWCA 92

- National Australia Bank Ltd v Juric [2001] VSC 375

- NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 741

- Re MyCorp Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 899

- Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 2) [2017] FCA 202

- Toyota Finance Australia Limited v AJI Enterprise Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 33

- Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman Networks Ltd (2006) 150 FCR 110; [2006] FCAFC 41

- Wyszenko v Wyszenko [2012] NSWSC 732

- Yuan v Huang [2023] NSWSC 1021

- Zomojo Pty Ltd v Hird (No 5) [2014] FCA 537

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Plaintiff)
Belfield Development Pty Ltd (Seventh Defendant)
NNG Holdings Pty Ltd (Eighth Defendant)
NG Sydney Corporation Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Nahi Gazal (Tenth Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
L F Kelly SC with S Scott (Plaintiff)
R Rahal (Solicitor) (Tenth Defendant)

Solicitors:
K&L Gates (Plaintiff)
Dib Lawyers (Tenth Defendant)

File Number(s):

2020/365632

Judgment

Nature of the application and background facts

1. By Amended Notice of Motion and Amended Statement of Charge (“ASC”), the Plaintiff, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (“DCT”), seeks orders that the Seventh Defendant, Belfield Development Pty Ltd (“Belfield”); the Eighth Defendant, NNG Holdings Pty Ltd (“NNG”); the First Respondent, NG Sydney Corporation Pty Ltd (“NG Sydney”); and the Tenth Defendant, Mr Nahi Gazal (“Mr Gazal”) are each guilty of contempt of court.

2. By its ASC filed on 6 May 2025, the DCT pleads facts on which the charges rely. The gravamen of the DCT’s charges of contempt are that, immediately prior to 24 December 2020, the date when freezing orders were first made against Belfield and NNG, Belfield maintained an account with the Australian and New Zealand Banking Corporation (“ANZ”) which was in credit in the amount of $1,492,455.59; NNG maintained an account which was in credit in the amount of $3,324,740.28; and, after the freezing orders were made, Mr Gazal, in multiple transactions which were largely falsely characterised as payment of ordinary business expenses, withdrew the funds in those accounts and dissipated them. The details of the withdrawals from the ANZ accounts are pleaded, at length, in paragraphs [18]–[417] of the ASC. The DCT did not press a further charge (ASC [419]–[421]) alleging non-disclosure by Mr Gazal of certain personal property in his disclosure affidavit sworn pursuant to the freezing orders.

3. The contempt application was originally listed for hearing in November 2024 but the hearing was adjourned, on the DCT’s application supported by Mr Gazal, until May 2025. Mr Gazal did not lead evidence or make submissions in accordance with orders then made by the Court in respect of that hearing, initially contending that he had sought Legal Aid and was appealing the refusal of his application and then contending that he had had developed issues that affected his capacity. On the first hearing day on 6 May 2025, Mr Gazal brought an unsuccessful application to vacate the hearing; the DCT read and tendered its evidence, and I then adjourned the matter to allow Mr Gazal a further opportunity to lead evidence and make submissions. Again, Mr Gazal did not do so and, when the matter was again listed on 27 May 2025, he again unsuccessfully sought again to vacate the hearing date and when that application failed, did not seek to make submissions. Mr Gazal was represented at the hearing by Counsel in respect of his unsuccessful applications to vacate each of the hearing dates, and by his solicitor in respect of the substance of the proceedings. Mr Gazal did not admit any aspect of the DCT’s case and has put the DCT to proof of the entirety of that case.

4. By way of background, Mr Gazal is the sole director of each of the companies in issue and is the sole shareholder of NNG and NG Sydney, and NNG is the sole shareholder of Belfield. Belfield was trustee for the Belfield Development Unit Trust; NNG was trustee for NNG Family Trust; and each of Belfield, NNG and NG Sydney were not registered for GST. The evidence establishes that Mr Gazal controlled each of the company’s bank accounts.

5. As I noted above, on 24 December 2020, the Court made an order including the Penal Notice in Annexure A to the order (“Freezing Order”) (Ex P2, CB 1438) which applied, inter alia, to Belfield, NNG and Mr Gazal which, relevantly, restrained Belfield, NNG and Mr Gazal from taking any step to pay, transfer, dispose of, or otherwise diminish, their assets as set out in the Freezing Order including, but not limited to, the Belfield bank account and the NNG bank account. Exceptions to that order permitted the parties bound by it to pay up to $5,000 a week on their ordinary business or living expenses (paragraph 8(a)); pay up to $10,000 on reasonable legal expenses, limited to expenses in connection with the order (paragraph 8(b)); and deal or dispose of any of their assets in the ordinary and proper course of their business, including paying business expenses bona fide and properly incurred (paragraph 8(c)). The DCT contends that the relevant companies and Mr Gazal have relied on the third of those exceptions (the ordinary course of business exception) dishonestly to withdraw very large sums of money in repeated contraventions of the orders.

6. On 4 January 2021, the Freezing Order was varied and Mr Gazal was ordered to swear and serve an affidavit setting out all assets which he owned legally or beneficially in Australia and which exceeded the value of $1,000, in each case giving their value, location and details and the extent of his interest (Ex P2, CB 1475).

7. On 26 March 2021, the Court made a further freezing order including the Penal Notice at Annexure B extending, inter alia, to NG Sydney (Ex P2, CB 1874).

Affidavit and other evidence

8. The DCT read the affidavit dated 9 September 2024 of its solicitor, Mr Andrew Chambers (“Chambers 1”) which referred to the circumstances in which the freezing orders were made and exhibits documents relevant to the proceedings.

9. The DCT also read an affidavit dated 11 November 2024 of Ms Tuziak, who is a solicitor acting for it, addressed the making of freezing orders in relation to Belfield, NNG and NG Sydney; the service of the Notice of Motion and Statement of Charge, in their original form, on Mr Gazal; and subsequent steps taken in the proceedings.

10. By an affidavit dated 11 November 2024, Mr McNamara, who is a graduate employed at the solicitors acting for the DCT, referred to his observations at several properties at which work was allegedly undertaken and invoiced to the several companies. The DCT also read multiple affidavits of strata managers and the owners of units for which was work was invoiced indicating that work which had been invoiced to the companies had not been performed at those properties and that they had not engaged relevant entities to perform that work.

11. By a further affidavit dated 23 February 2025 (“Chambers 2”), Mr Chambers addressed the position in respect of numerous properties referred to in the invoices and the DCT tendered (Ex P2) property searches and other documents directed to establish the position in respect of those properties and other documents relied on to establish the basis of its claims. The DCT also read the affidavit dated 5 May 2025 of Mr Chambers (“Chambers 3”), and tendered additional documents exhibited to that affidavit (Ex P1) which were directed, inter alia, to clarify an aspect of his earlier evidence.

12. The DCT also relied on the oral evidence of Mr Georgopoulos, who was a senior banking consultant in the Martin Place branch of ANZ Bank at the time of relevant events and was called on subpoena. Mr Georgopoulos’ evidence was that he provided services to Mr Gazal at the Martin Place branch of the ANZ Bank. Mr Gazal came into the branch and presented him with Court documents relating to the freezing order made by the Court, and Mr Gazal told him when he first brought in the documents of his need to access the accounts to pay his personal, medical, and living expenses (T24). Mr Georgopoulos sent the documents to ANZ’s Statutory Compliance Team and also noted that there were then notes on the relevant ANZ accounts that recorded they were frozen; and ANZ’s Statutory Compliance team advised Mr Georgopoulos that money could be paid out of the accounts for ordinary business expenses, pursuant to the exception to the freezing order, as long as he documented evidence such as an invoice was available (T25). Mr Georgopoulos’ evidence was that he most likely explained to Mr Gazal that, if something was an ordinary business expense and he produced an invoice, that would be sufficient for him to be able to get money out of the accounts (T28). Mr Georgopoulos accepted that there was one occasion on which he was suspicious of an invoice presented to him, and he had discussed that suspicion with Statutory Compliance (T28). Mr Gazal attended Mr Georgopoulos almost once a week in order to procure relevant payments out of the accounts (T28). Mr Georgopoulos’ evidence was also that he had a clear recollection of these matters because (T29):

“Out of all the customers that I probably dealt with more frequently at ANZ, he [Mr Gazal] was definitely the customer that stood out the most to me, mostly just because you don’t have somebody that comes in with Court orders for $40 million of freezing orders every day. So I did get to see him around once a week for a fair while, and due to the nature of how it worked at ANZ, I would have to book in an appointment [to] see him for good 30 to 40 minutes to process the transactions for him. It couldn’t be done on line. It really required me to sort of be there with him.” (T29)

13. Mr Gazal did not seek to cross-examine Mr Georgopoulos or challenge any aspect of his evidence. That evidence establishes both Mr Gazal’s knowledge of the freezing orders and the exceptions to them, which he had discussed with Mr Georgopoulos and his personal involvement in numerous payments out of the relevant accounts.

14. The DCT also tenders the affidavit dated 29 January 2021 of Mr Gazal (Ex P3) in respect of the disclosure orders, sworn in his own capacity and as sole director of Belfield, NG Sydney and NNG, in which he stated, inter alia, that he had no assets other than as set out in the affidavit (which relevantly included moneys held by NG Sydney in a Bankwest account) and he deposed that he did not have “access” to the bank accounts maintained by Belfield, NNG or NG Sydney. The evidence to which I refer below indicates that Mr Gazal had access to and control over those accounts in any relevant sense. The DCT submits, and I accept, that the evidence given by Mr Gazal in his affidavit of 29 January 2021 that he did not have access to the bank accounts of Belfield, NNG, and NG Sydney was false where he was the sole director of each of Belfield, NNG and NG Sydney; he was the sole signatory on each of the bank accounts of Belfield, NNG and NG Sydney; and, as events showed, he had the capacity to withdraw funds from those accounts. The DCT also submits that Mr Gazal must have known that statement was false where, before it was made, he had already presented ANZ with a false invoice purportedly from Skybridge for the payment of $40,700 in “business expenses” and that sum had been debited from the NNG bank account. I address the relevant transactions below.

15. The DCT’s case otherwise depends upon a review of the numerous transactions in issue, in order to establish that they were not properly within the scope of the exception to the freezing order and were supported by false information provided by Mr Gazal.

Applicable principles

16. I should first note the source of the Court’s jurisdiction to punish Mr Gazal in contempt. I have here drawn on the DCT’s submissions and the judgment of Bell P (as the Chief Justice then was) in NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 741 (“NHB Enterprises”) and my judgment in Huang v Liao [2022] NSWSC 347 (to which the DCT refers).

17. Rule 40.6 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) relevantly provides:

40.6   Doing Or Abstaining From Doing An Act

(1)    This rule applies in the following circumstances:

(c)   if:

(i)   a judgment requires a person to abstain from doing an act, and

(ii)   the person disobeys the judgment,

but does not apply to a judgment for the payment of money (including a judgment for the payment of money into court).

(2)   In circumstances to which this rule applies, a judgment may be enforced by one or more of the following means:

(a)   committal of the person bound by the judgment …

18. Rule 13 in Part 55 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) in turn provides that, where a contemnor is not a corporation, the Court may punish contempt by committal to a correctional centre or fine or both; and the Court may make an order for punishment on terms, including a suspension of punishment or a suspension of punishment, in case the contemnor gives security in such manner and in such sum as the Court may approve for good behaviour and performs the terms of the security.

19. In Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98 at 106; [1986] HCA 46 (“Australasian Meat Industry”), Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson and Deane JJ observed that:

“Punishment for contempt serves two functions:

(a)   enforcement of the process and orders of the Court, disobedience to which has been described as ‘civil contempt’; and

(b)   punishment of other acts which impede the administration of justice, such as obstructing proceedings in Court while it is sitting or publishing comments on a pending case, which have both been described as ‘criminal contempt’ … .

The principal theoretical basis of the distinction is that disobedience to the process and orders of the Court in civil proceedings is said to be a civil wrong, a matter between party and party, enforcement being for the private benefit or interest of the party seeking enforcement … . A secondary basis for the distinction is that the main purpose of sanctions for disobedience in civil proceedings is coercive rather than punitive.”

Their Honours nonetheless noted (at 107–108) that there was difficulty in maintaining the decision and elaborating a certain criterion for it.

20. In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Hughes [2001] FCA 38, Tamberlin J similarly pointed to the rationale for punishment of contempt of court at [15] as follows:

“Ultimately, in the case of mandatory or prohibitory orders made by it, the sanction which the Court has in order to enforce its decisions is the power to punish for contempt. This is the way in which the Court preserves respect for its role and the rule of law. … Defiance of Court orders diminishes the authority of Courts and removes the incentive of parties, if such conduct is left unpunished, to comply with the requirements of the Court.”

That observation was cited with approval by Tracey J in Zomojo Pty Ltd v Hird (No 5) [2014] FCA 537 at [53].

21. Mr Kelly and Ms Scott, who appear for the DCT, also refer to Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 2) [2017] FCA 202 at [4]–[5], where Rares J observed that:

“Our society is structured on the basis that the Courts of law must be accessible to all persons, rich or poor, weak or strong, popular or unpopular, and whose cases may or may not be considered by others or the public to be good or bad. It is essential that everyone knows that the Courts are independent, not only of government but also of other influences, and that the Courts are also seen to be entirely free from outside influences, including public pressure. It is also fundamental that persons must obey, and cannot be allowed to ignore, orders that the Courts make. The due administration of justice requires that everyone be able to access the Courts to hear and determine disputes, that all persons in our society accept that the orders made by the Courts reflect the application of the law by which all are governed and that those orders must be obeyed while they are in force.

It is a very serious matter where a person disobeys a Court order knowing the Court has made it. If that conduct went unpunished by the Courts, a fundamental aspect of our society would suffer. Other people would come to think that they also could disobey or flout orders that a Court had made. The rule of law would be seriously undermined were such a situation left unpunished. Justice could not be done satisfactorily if the ordinary respect that members of our society have for the authority of the Courts to resolve disputes, as a part of our system of government, came to be undermined by persons openly disobeying Court orders …”

22. The elements which need to be established in an application seeking to establish a civil contempt arising from non-compliance with a court order were summarised by Gillard J in National Australia Bank Ltd v Juric [2001] VSC 375 at [37], in a passage followed in Advan Investments Pty Ltd v Dean Gleeson Motor Sales Ltd [2003] VSC 201 at [31], Wyszenko v Wyszenko [2012] NSWSC 732, Re MyCorp Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 899 at [21] and in Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2015) 238 FCR 209; (2015) 333 ALR 713; [2015] FCA 1275 at [9], as requiring, relevantly, that an order was made by a Court; the terms of the order were clear, unambiguous and capable of compliance; the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the terms of the order; and the alleged contemnor breached the terms of the order.

23. Proof of a specific intent to disobey the Court’s order is not necessary to prove civil contempt: Australasian Meat Industry at 110–114, where the Court held that a deliberate commission or omission which is in breach of an injunctive order or undertaking will constitute wilful disobedience unless it is casual, accidental or unintentional. The alleged contemnor may establish by way of exculpation that his or her default was of that character: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman Networks Ltd (2006) 150 FCR 110 at [15]–[18]; [2006] FCAFC 41; Anderson v Hassett [2007] NSWSC 1310 at [4]. In Markisic v Commonwealth of Australia (2007) 69 NSWLR 737; [2007] NSWCA 92, Campbell JA, giving the decision of the Court of Appeal, similarly observed (at [64]) that “proof that a contempt has been committed by breaching a court order involves proving enough to conclude that the action or inaction said to constitute the breach was deliberate, and not casual, accidental or unintentional.”

22. In NHB Enterprises, Bell P observed (at [192]–[193]), that breach of a Court order amounts to a contempt and that “[w]here contempt is said to consist of failure to comply with a court order, it must be demonstrated that the contempt was wilful, and not merely casual, accidental or unintentional.” The President observed (at [195]) that the overwhelming weight of authority is strongly in favour of the criminal standard of proof applying to such proceedings, but also noted an open question whether, in proceedings to which the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) applies, the applicable standard is that specified in s 140 which prescribes the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, but having regard to the nature of the subject matter of the proceedings and the gravity of the matters alleged: Eshow v Zaia [2020] NSWCA 10 at [23]ff. in NHB Enterprises, it was not necessary for the President to decide and it is also not necessary for me to decide that question. The President also noted (at [203]ff) that the traditional distinction between civil and criminal contempt has not been abolished.

23. The President also there reviewed several cases relating to breach of Court orders, including Toyota Finance Australia Limited v AJI Enterprise Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 33, where the plaintiff sought an order that the defendant be dealt with for contempt of Court where one count related to the defendant disposing of or otherwise dealing with any of ten vehicles without its prior written consent and another count related to the defendant’s alleged failure to deliver up the vehicles to the plaintiff. The Court was (at [167]) not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite knowledge of the terms of the Court orders, where the orders were served by email but it was not established they came to the defendant’s attention, so as to permit a conclusion that any breach of one or more of those orders was a contempt of Court. He also referred to Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Salvato (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 321, where Garling J held that the defendant was guilty of contempt as he deliberately breached, and had remained in breach of, an undertaking he had given to the Court that he would give possession of a property, vacate the property, and hand over the keys to the Commonwealth Bank by a specified date.

24. Mr Kelly and Ms Scott recognise that there is a question about who bears the onus of establishing that exceptions in the freezing order apply. In Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Sigalla (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 1076 at [46]-[48], the Court observed that the onus of establishing that the transfer of funds was for an exception to the freezing order was on the defendant. A different view was taken in Fortune Holding Group Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 2) [2017] VSC 738 at [31]-[49], the Court observed that the defendant bears an evidential onus to adduce evidence that raises a reasonable possibility that the impugned withdrawals fall within the ambit of the stated exceptions, and it is then for the plaintiffs, who bear the legal onus, to negative this proposition beyond reasonable doubt. That approach was not followed, without reference to that case, in Yuan v Huang [2023] NSWSC 1021 at [44], and the question was left open in Jorgensen v Fair Work Ombudsman (2019) 271 FCR 461; [2019] FCAFC 113 at [69]. Nothing turns on this issue here, both because the Defendants do not seek to lead evidence to establish that the exceptions to the freezing order apply, and the DCT has, in any event, established that they do not.

The transactions in issue

27. Multiple transactions are in issue which are said to constitute breach of freezing orders made by the Court. The DCT, in submissions and in a helpful schedule, organised these transactions by reference to particular properties. I will organise them by reference to the companies in issue, where the DCT seeks orders that each of those companies, as well as Mr Gazal, are liable in contempt.

28. I have here drawn on the DCT’s submissions made in anticipation of the first hearing and updated at the second day of hearing, and on a schedule of transactions prepared by the DCT, which were followed in submissions on the first day of the hearing and updated for the second day of the hearing. Mr Gazal’s solicitor did not seek to challenge any aspect of this schedule, although I recognise that likely reflects, in part, the limited role which Mr Gazal paid in the proceedings. It is notable that numerous transactions took place, in respect of several properties, although there is a significant commonality of the false elements of the relevant invoices. There is also evidence that the recipients of payments transferred funds or conferred other benefits on Mr Gazal after the payments were made; that, however, is not a necessary element to establishing a breach of the freezing orders or in contempt, although it may well be relevant to penalty.

29. The DCT contends that Mr Gazal, and the companies he controls, engaged in a deliberate course of conduct whereby he presented false, concocted invoices made out to the companies he controls, Belfield, NNG and NG Sydney, in order to obtain payments out of bank accounts that he controlled (due to his control of these companies) that were the subject of the freezing orders. I will deal with the position in respect of the relevant companies in turn, and then the position in respect of Mr Gazal. The DCT also contends that Mr Gazal caused the companies to make payments on the basis of fabricated invoices from third party corporate entities which he presented to banks (namely ANZ and Bankwest, a division of Commonwealth Bank of Australia (“CBA”)), for payment out of accounts maintained by Belfield, NNG and NG Sydney that were the subject of freezing orders made on 24 December 2020 and on 26 March 2021. It contends that each of these accounts were solely controlled by Mr Gazal as signatory, although Mr Gazal claimed to the contrary in his disclosure affidavit.

30. Mr Kelly and Ms Scott also submit that:

“One matter that is obvious, but should be stated, is that the frauds (being the payments out of money of the accounts in contempt of court) could not have occurred unless Mr Gazal had acted dishonestly. For example, if one of the companies received an invoice for work that was not done for it, and in relation to a non-existent property, no honest person would instruct the bank to pay such an invoice. But this course of action …, due to the sheer number of times it occurred, happened repeatedly. The only explanation (and there are no others) is that Mr Gazal was causing fabricated invoices to be concocted by himself or someone (it does not matter whom), which were false and dishonest, and presenting them to the banks for payment so as to dishonestly engage a carve out in the freezing orders which permitted ordinary business expenses to be paid …

Mr Gazal, in presenting the fraudulent invoices, was taking dishonest advantage of an exception to the freezing orders which permits dealing or disposing of assets in the ordinary and proper course of business by paying business expenses bona fide and properly incurred … In no universe were the payments in the ordinary course of business as they were paid on the basis of false invoices for work that was not actually performed by the entity purporting to invoice for the work.

The DCT submits that the Court should be satisfied that an egregious course of criminal contempt has been established against Mr Gazal and the companies which he controls. The invoices presented by Mr Gazal, or a lawyer engaged by Mr Gazal, to ANZ and Bankwest were plainly false.”

31. Before turning to the particular transactions, I should note several wider matters on which the DCT relies in support of this claim. First, the DCT submits, and I accept, that Belfield could not have lawfully carried on business on the scale claimed in the invoices, because it was not registered for GST. Second, the DCT submits, and I find below, that some submitted invoices purportedly relate to work on apartments which do not exist or at locations which do not exist (Tsibulya 22.02.25 [8]). Third, some invoices claim for corresponding work purportedly performed on the same units by different companies at different times.

32. The DCT also contends that, between 21 January 2021 and 23 July 2021, Mr Gazal presented to ANZ some 50 invoices purportedly issued by Hawthorn Investments Australia Pty Ltd (“Hawthorn”) or Skybridge to Belfield or NG Holdings Pty Ltd (“NG Holdings”) (as distinct from NNG). I accept that Mr Gazal frequently personally presented these invoices to ANZ given Mr Georgopoulos’ evidence of the manner in which they were processed. The DCT also submits that Mr Gazal represented that these invoices were “business expenses” of Belfield or NNG; those representations were false and dishonest; and, on the basis of those representations, ANZ and Bankwest allowed the funds to be withdrawn with the effect that, by 3 April 2023 the balance of the NG Sydney Bankwest account had been reduced from $1,704,725 to $897.54. I also accept that submission by reference to the transactions set out below.

33. The DCT also points out that the invoices presented by Mr Gazal are in largely the same form regardless of the company issuing them, and the invoices presented in respect of work purportedly performed by Hawthorn, John Building Corp Pty Ltd (“John Building Corp”) or Sawan Corp Pty Ltd (“Sawan”) on apartments at various locations all describe the work performed as some variation (with only minor differences) of the following description:

“Jobs Rendered for units X, Y and Z @ location – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishing – styling of each apartment.” [or]

“Works completed for Units X, Y and Z: Replaced bench top, splash back, tap ware, sink. Upgraded oven and range top to Miele appliances. Repainting of the area. Refurbishment and repainting of the living and bedrooms. Replaced timber flooring and carpets. Replaced window furnishing in the living room.”

34. The DCT points out that the invoices presented in respect of work performed by Skybridge are all in identical format, except that the location, the “site” and the price periodically changes and all contain the same description:

“Sourcing development opportunities

Running feasibility studies

Consulting experts regarding land valuation,

construction costing and market realisation for the end product.

Due Diligence information gathering

and examining.”

The DCT also points out that the invoices are usually for round figures and that, on each occasion that Mr Gazal provided an ANZ or Bankwest bank officer with an invoice, he described the invoice as a “business expense” in his covering email.

35. I accept these matters as objective facts that are relevant to determining whether the invoices are accurate representations of work performed. I need not address the DCT’s broader contention that the consistency of the invoices is:

“a typical indicium of a fraudulent course of conduct. A fraudster finds a “winning” formula and repeats the essence of it once it has worked for him or her.”

Claim in respect of Belfield

36. I now turn to the impugned transactions in respect of Belfield. The only real issue in dispute as to this claim is whether Mr Gazal breached the relevant orders. It is plain, and I find, that those orders were made by the Court; the terms of the orders were clear, unambiguous and capable of compliance; and Mr Gazal had knowledge of the terms of the orders, not only because they were served on him, but because his discussions with Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ were directed to the operation of those orders and the scope of the exception from them.

37. The evidence establishes that, prior to the making of the Freezing Order on 24 December 2020, Belfield maintained a bank account with ANZ with a balance of $1,492,455.59 (Ex P2, CB 1228).

38. The first impugned transaction in respect of Belfield is a payment from Belfield’s account of $57,200 on 3 February 2021 (ASC [29]–[32]). On 1 February 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Skybridge invoice #0093 dated 18 January 2021 in an amount of $57,200 addressed to Belfield and, in his covering email, confirmed that it was a “business expense” (Ex P2, CB 1554–1555). The work purportedly done was described in then invoice as:

“Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costings and market realisation for the end product.”

39. This is the first of three invoices which Mr Gazal presented to ANZ for payment in respect of works purportedly undertaken at 13-17 Ithaca Road, Elizabeth Bay, NSW which was, until recently, a four-storey apartment block (Chambers 2 [108]). The DCT points out that, between 14 October 2019 and 18 January 2022, Salgal Nominees Pty Ltd (“Salgal Nominees”) and Karen Eva Korn were the owners of all 32 units in this building (Korn 14.01.25 [4]; Chambers 2 [110]–[112]). Mr Trevor Korn, the husband of Mrs Korn and a director of Salgal Nominees, has given evidence that neither he nor Mrs Korn instructed or engaged Hawthorn, Belfield, NG Holdings or Skybridge to perform any work in connection with the units at the property during the period October 2019 to January 2022 (Korn 14.01.25 [10]–[11]). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order. This clear case of false invoicing cast light on the practice adopted by Mr Gazal in respect of other invoices.

40. The second impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $74,063 on 8 February 2021 (ASC [39]–[44]). On 5 February 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ Hawthorn invoice #41 dated 11 January 2021 in an amount of $74,063 addressed to Belfield and confirmed that it was a “business expense” (Ex P2, CB 1625–1627). The purported work was described in the invoice as:

“Jobs Rendered for units 13/15/19/23 Wave Project 380 Princes Hwy, Rockdale NSW 2216: – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes – window furnishing – styling of each apartment.”

Mr Georgopoulos forwarded that email to ANZ’s Statutory Compliance function and noted that once he had approval, he would organise a time for Mr Gazal “to come in to proceed with it”.

41. This is the second invoice in relation to the Wave Rockdale development, which was developed from around 2018 by The Wave Rockdale Pty Ltd (“The Wave Rockdale”) as trustee for the Wave Rockdale Unit Trust. The Wave Rockdale was a special purpose vehicle created by Chanine Developments and it commenced construction of a block of 35 residential units at Rockdale (Chanine 20.12.24 [2]). The Wave Rockdale engaged C9 Developments Pty Ltd (“C9 Developments”) to project manage the development (Chanine 20.12.24 [3]) and Jasara Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (“Jasara Constructions”) to build the development (Chambers 2 [16]). Construction was completed around June 2021 (Chanine 20.12.24 [3]) and the strata plan was registered on 16 July 2021 (Chambers 2 [14]). By invoices #41, #43 and #57 Hawthorn has claimed payment for corresponding work performed on the same units in the same development only weeks apart. I accept that it is highly unlikely that work would have been redone three times and charged for each time by the same contractor within a short time frame. Second, according to its registered strata plan, the Wave Rockdale does not have apartments numbered 13, 15, 19 and 23 (Ex P2, CB 2081). Again, such an error could occur, but it is highly unlikely that it would occur as many times as in this matter. Third, even if the references in the invoices were to “lot numbers” rather than unit numbers, neither C9 Developments nor Jasara Constructions engaged Hawthorn to perform any work in connection with the Wave Rockdale (Chanine 20.12.24 [6]; Chambers 2 [19]). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

42. The third impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $82,500 on 9 February 2021 (ASC [45]–[48]). On 9 February 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Skybridge invoice 0096 dated 27 January 2021 in an amount of $82,500 (Ex P2, CB 1628–1629) addressed to Belfield for purported work described as:

“252-262 Campbell Parade Bondi Beach Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies, Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining.”

43. This is the first of two invoices relating to these properties. The DCT points out that 252-262 Campbell Parade, Bondi, NSW does not exist as a place upon which such work could be done, since it is two separate buildings on two separate titles owned by two separate owners; neither property has registered strata plans (Chambers 2 [125], [128]–[130]); 252 Campbell Parade is a private hotel and boarding house (Chambers 2 [126]) and, on 17 September 2019, Waverly Council approved a development application modification in respect of 252 Campbell Parade (Chambers 2 [131]); and 262 Campbell Parade is a block of apartments (Chambers 2 [132]) and has received approval of a separate and unrelated development application (Chambers 2 [136]). I think it likely that this invoice was false, and that the payment was made in breach of the freezing order, for these reasons and because of the pattern of conduct that has emerged, but I do not consider I can reach that finding to the standard necessary in a contempt application.

44. The fourth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $92,400 on 16 February 2021 (ASC [53]–[58]). On that date, Mr Gazal presented Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #48 dated 2 February 2021 in an amount of $92,400 addressed to Belfield for purported work described as “Jobs Rendered for units 1307/1414/1711/1811 @ Ryde Garden 1,3/5 Network Pl North Ryde NSW 2113 – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishing – styling of each apartment” (Ex P2, CB 1632, 1633). This is the first of several invoices in respect of works purportedly undertaken at Ryde Garden which is a large residential property development consisting of 830 apartments across three towers (A, B and C) located at 1, 3 and 5 Network Place, North Ryde NSW (Chambers 2 [26]). The invoice does not specify whether the apartments are located in buildings A, B and/or C, so it is not possible to identify in which apartment the works are said to have occurred. However, the evidence of the strata managers of each of buildings A, B and C at Ryde Gardens is that the works described in the invoices are likely to have required owners corporation approval and they can find no record of any approval and no reference in any of their records to Hawthorn, Belfield, Sawan and John Building Corp (Howell 13.1.25 [9]–[12]; Vanderwal 16.12.24 [7]–[12]). I recognise that a single owner might have done such works without approval, but it is inconceivable that many owners did so over multiple units on multiple occasions. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

45. The fifth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $93,500 on 25 February 2021 (ASC [65]–[70]). On 19 February 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Skybridge invoice 0103 dated 5 February 2021 in an amount of $93,500 addressed to Belfield (Ex P2, CB 1803–1804) for purported work described as:

“Site: 84 Tallawong Rd, Rouse Hill NSW 2155 Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies, Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining.”

46. The DCT submits that the owners of that property had no reason to engage a party to source development opportunities or conduct feasibility studies because, by the time this invoice was issued, that property had a development approved for the demolition of its existing buildings and the construction of 350 residential apartments (Chambers 2 [60]). I accept that proposition, but I do not consider that, without more, it provides sufficient basis to find, to the requisite standard, that this invoice was false, or that the payment was made in breach of the freezing order.

47. The sixth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $96,800 on 11 March 2021 (ASC [77]–[82]). On 9 March 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Skybridge invoice 0105 dated 18 February 2021 in an amount of $96,800 addressed to Belfield (Ex P2, CB 1807–1808) for purported work described as:

“Site: 39 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000 Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies, Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining.”

48. The DCT points out that there was no need for such a development opportunity to be sourced or for a feasibility study to have been undertaken because that property had been acquired by Transport NSW for construction of the Sydney Metro (Chambers 2 [207]–[209]) and, in August 2019, Macquarie Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (“Macquarie Corporate”) was granted approved by the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces for the construction of a 39-storey commercial office tower, the construction of which then commenced (Chambers 2 [211]; Ex P2, CB 1050). The DCT does not lead evidence to negate the possibility that Macquarie Corporate engaged Belfield or Skybridge to perform the work claimed, when there was no utility in doing so, but that possibility is so unlikely that it can be rejected. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

49. The seventh impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $97,900 on 24 March 2021 (ASC [95]–[100]). On 24 March 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Skybridge invoice 0111 dated 8 March 2021 in an amount of $97,900 addressed to Belfield (Ex P2, CB 1867–1868) for purported work described as:

“Site: 550 Chapel Street, South Yarra Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies, Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining.”

50. The owner of 550 Chapel Street, South Yarra, namely South Yarra Colonnade Pty Ltd, has confirmed that it did not engage or instruct Skybridge or Belfield to perform the work claimed in this invoice (Chambers 2 [194]–[199]; Ex P2, CB 2935; 3037). There is no apparent reason why Belfield would require this work on a third party’s property. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

51. The eighth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $99,000 on 31 March 2021 (ASC [107]–[110]). On 30 March 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #0112 dated 15 March 2021 in an amount of $99,000 addressed to Belfield for purported work described “Jobs Rendered for units 4/6/10/12/14 @ Paragon Project, Pyrmont – Replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave – Refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – Window furnishings and styling of each apartment” (Ex P2, CB 1929–1930). This is the first of three invoices that Mr Gazal presented to ANZ for payment in respect of works purportedly undertaken at Paragon of Pyrmont, which is a residential property development consisting of 31 apartments. The first stage was completed in April 2021 and the second stage was completed in November 2021 by Thirdi Miller Street Apartments Pty Ltd (“Thirdi Miller”) (Chambers 2 [79]). Thirdi Miller has confirmed that it did not instruct or engage Hawthorn or NG Holdings to perform any work in connection with the Paragon of Pyrmont Project (Ex P2, CB 3036). I am satisfied that this invoice is false, and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

52. The ninth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $97,900 on 20 April 2021 (ASC [135]–[140]). On 16 April 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #0119 dated 29 March 2021 in the amount of $97,900 addressed to Belfield for purported work described as “Jobs Rendered for units D201/D304/E202/E204/F301 @RouseGarden project 1 Rouse Road, Rouse Hill - Replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishings and styling of each apartment” (Ex P2, CB 1941–1942). This is the first of three invoices presented by Mr Gazal in respect of works purportedly undertaken at Rouse Gardens to ANZ and Bankwest for payment. Rouse Gardens is a residential development consisting of 140 apartments, completed in September 2020 (Chambers 2 [49]–[50]; a copy of the registered strata plan appears at Ex P2, CB 1299). This invoice claims for corresponding work to invoice 0117 issued by John Building Corp to NG Sydney. As I have noted above, it is highly unlikely that two companies both controlled by Mr Gazal would pay for corresponding work twice and do so as many times as occurs in this matter. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

53. The tenth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $97,900 on 6 May 2021 (ASC [153]–[158]). On 5 May 2021, Mr Gazal presented Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #124 dated 19 April 2021 in an amount of $97,900 addressed to Belfield for purported work described as “Jobs Rendered for units 607/609 /1105 /1106 @ Ryde Garden project 1,3/5 Network Pl North Ryde NSW 2113 -replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishings – styling of each apartment” (Ex P2, CB 1963–1964). This is the third invoice for the Ryde Garden location. This invoice also does not specify whether the apartments are located in buildings A, B and/or C, so it is not possible to identify in which apartment the works are said to have occurred. However, as I noted above, the evidence of the strata managers of each of buildings A, B and C at Ryde Gardens, is that the works described in the invoices are likely to have required owners corporation approval and they can find no record of any approval and no reference in any of their records to Hawthorn, Belfield, Sawan and/or John Building Corp (Howell 13.01.25 [9]–[12]; Vanderwal 16.12.24 [7]–[12]). I recognise that a single owner might have done such works without approval, but it is inconceivable that many owners did so over multiple units on multiple occasions. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

54. The eleventh impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $99,000 on 18 May 2021 (ASC [171]-[176]). On 17 May 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #0128 dated 29 April 2021 in an amount of $99,000 addressed to Belfield for purported work described as “Jobs Rendered for units D3.18/D3.19/E4.24/E4.45 for project @ 580 Princes Highway, Kirrawee NSW 2232 -Replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave -Refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access -Window furnishings and styling of each apartment" (Ex P2, CB 1969–1970). This is the third invoice relating to purported work at the South Village location, which is a large residential development located at Flora Street and Village Place and fronts the Princes Highway in Kirrawee, NSW. There are seven separate buildings A, B, C, D, E, F and G and construction was completed in mid-late 2019 (Chambers 2 [21]). The strata managing agent has confirmed in response to a subpoena to the owners of SP98217 which comprise the apartments in buildings E and D (Chambers 2 [22]–[23]) that it has no documents to produce concerning approvals for the relevant work by Hawthorn. I recognise that a single owner might have done such works without approval, but it is inconceivable that many owners did so over multiple units on multiple occasions. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

55. The twelfth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $99,000 on 27 May 2021 (ASC [195]–[200]). On or around 26 May 2021, Mr Gazal caused ANZ to be presented with Skybridge invoice 0132 dated 10 May 2021 in an amount of $99,000 addressed to NG Holdings for purported work described as “Site: 432 Kent Street Sydney Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining” (Ex P2, CB 1977-1978). The DCT points out that, from 2016 to July 2021, this building was owned by ATMC Property Kent Street Pty Ltd (“ATMC”) (Chambers 2 [170]). The director of ATMC has given evidence that he did not instruct or engage Skybridge or Belfield to perform the work described (Malhotra 12.2.25 [10]–[11]). The building’s owner from July 2021 has been Bulkara Properties Pty Ltd and its Secretary has given evidence that it also did not instruct or engage Skybridge to perform the work (Kroehnert 7.2.25 [10]–[11]).

56. The thirteenth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $99,000 on 8 June 2021 (ASC [219]–[224]). On 7 June 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #0138 dated 20 May 2021 in the amount of $99,000 addressed to Belfield for purported work described “Jobs Rendered for units 9A/9C/10C/10D/10E for project @ Rhodes Central, Rhodes NSW - Replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave -Refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access - Window furnishings and styling of each apartment" (Ex P2, CB 1987–1988). This is the fourth of seven invoices that Mr Gazal presented or caused to be presented in respect of works purportedly undertaken at Rhodes Central to ANZ and Bankwest for payment. Rhodes Central is a residential property development consisting of more than 1200 residential units across four towers located at Walker Street, Rhodes NSW. Stage 1 (buildings A and B) was completed in 2021. Stage 2 (buildings D and E) was completed in 2024 and Stage 3 is yet to be completed (Chambers 2 [34]; Maroon 7.1.25 [4]). There are no lot numbers or units in buildings A, B, D and E which use the numbering convention 9A/9C/10C/10D/10E (Ex P2, CB 1381–1387; 1678–1681; 2165; 2490–2496; 2536–2538; 2609–2614; 2752–2756). I recognise that such an error could occur, but it is highly unlikely that different suppliers made the same error on multiple occasions. Invoice 332 from Sawan to NG Sydney claims for work performed to units 10C and 10D and invoice #0138 from Hawthorn to Belfield also claimed for corresponding work performed to units 10C and 10D. It is highly unlikely that two companies both controlled by Mr Gazal would then pay for corresponding work twice and do so as many times as occurs in this matter. As I noted above, in response to a subpoena issued by the DCT, Walker Street Development Pty Ltd (“Walker Street”), the developer of Stage 1, has confirmed that it has no documents which record instructions to, or the engagement of, Hawthorn (Ex P2, CB 2997). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

57. The fourteenth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $99,000 on 16 June 2021 (ASC [237]–[242]). On 16 June 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Skybridge invoice 0142 dated 27 May 2021 in an amount of $99,000 addressed to Belfield (Ex P2, CB 1994–1996) for purported work described as:

“Site: 183-185 Kent street Sydney Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies, Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining.”

58. The DCT points out that, in 1996, the Stamford Hotel Group purchased a 20-storey office tower located at 183-187 Kent Street, Millers Point, NSW and redeveloped the site into a mix of hotel rooms and luxury apartments (Chambers 2 [158]-[159]); 183 Kent Street is the Stamford on Kent which also contains some residential apartments with a registered strata plan 61643 (Chambers 2 [156]). 187 Kent street is now known as the Grand Apartments and it has a registered strata plan SP 61897 (Chambers 2 [153]). The strata managing agents for 183 Kent Street and the Grand Apartments have each given evidence that the respective owners’ corporations have not instructed or engaged Skybridge or NG Holdings to perform any work (van Oort 23.1.25 [8]; Roberts 30.1.25 [8]).

59. The fifteenth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $99,000 on 28 June 2021 (ASC [265]–[270]). On 28 June 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #0148 dated 10 June 2021 in an amount of $99,000 addressed to Belfield for purported work described “Jobs Rendered for units 10/11/12/13/14 for project @ 13-17 Ithaca Road, Elizabeth bay [sic] NSW - Replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave – Refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishings and styling of each apartment” (Ex P2, CB 2044–2046). As I noted above, the DCT points out that, between 14 October 2019 and 18 January 2022, Salgal Nominees and Karen Eva Korn were the owners of all 32 units in this building (Korn 14.01.25 [4]); Chambers 2 [110]–[112]). Mr Trevor Korn, the husband of Mrs Korn and a director of Salgal Nominees, has given evidence that neither he nor Mrs Korn instructed or engaged Hawthorn, Belfield, NG Holdings or Skybridge to perform any work in connection with the units at the property during the period October 2019 to January 2022 (Korn 14.01.25 [10]–[11]). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order. As I also noted above, this clear case of false invoicing cast light on the practice adopted by Mr Gazal in respect of other invoices.

60. The sixteenth impugned transaction is a payment from Belfield’s account of $96,800 on 29 July 2021 (ASC [313]–[318]). On 28 July 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Skybridge invoice 0165 dated 13 July 2021 in an amount of $96,800 addressed to Belfield (Ex P2, CB 2088–2089) for purported work described as:

“18 Thomas Street Haymarket NSW 2000 Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies, Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining.”

61. The DCT points out that this address does not exist (McNamara 11.11.24 [8]–[14]; Chambers 2 [141]). While I recognise the possibility of error in an invoice, I think it highly unlikely that there would be multiple incorrect reference to non-existent properties in genuine invoices. I am satisfied to the requisite standard that this invoice is false and the payment was made in breach of the freezing order.

62. By the completion of these transactions, the balance of Belfield’s account was reduced from $1,486,019 to $3,016.39 (ASC [324]). I find that the necessary elements to find Belfield liable for contempt are established to the requisite standard, for the reasons noted above, in respect of the transactions identified above.

Claim in respect of NNG

63. I now turn to the impugned transactions in respect of NNG. The DCT advances the same claim in respect of transactions involving NNG as it put in respect of Belfield. The DCT again submits, and I accept, that NNG could not have lawfully carried on business on the scale claimed in the invoices, because it was not registered for GST. The DCT points out that all the invoices paid by ANZ in respect of NNG were made out to a different company, NG Holdings (Chambers 2 at [9]-[10]) and that undermines the application of the relevant exception, although it would likely not be sufficient in itself to establish a deliberate breach of the freezing orders. Third, the DCT submits, and I find below, that some invoices submitted purportedly relate to work on apartments which do not exist or at locations which do not exist (Tsibulya 22.01.25 [8]–[9]). Fourth, some invoices claim for corresponding work purportedly performed on the same units by different companies at different times

64. Prior to the making of the Freezing Order on 24 December 2020, NNG maintained a bank account with ANZ with an account balance of $3,324,740.28 (Ex P2, CB 1621).

65. The first impugned transaction in respect of NNG is a payment from NNG’s account of $35,000 to Eden King Lawyers on 5 January 2021 (ASC [18]–[21]). I allowed the parties an opportunity to make additional submissions as to this transaction which was not addressed by the DCT’s submissions in chief. The DCT points out that, on 5 January 2021, Mr Gazal attended the ANZ Martin Place branch and procured a bank cheque in the amount of $35,000 from the account maintained by ANZ in respect of NNG (Ex P2, CB 1493) and presented ANZ with his drivers licence in doing so (Ex P2, CB 1491). ANZ recorded the payment as “paying lawyers fees $35,000” (Ex P2, CB 1488). The DCT recognises that, prior to this transaction, on 4 January 2021, the freezing order was varied (Ex P2, CB 1475–1482) so as not to prohibit the payment of reasonable legal expenses, limited to expenses in connection with this proceeding on condition that the solicitors for the Defendants serve on the solicitors for the Plaintiff a written certificate (Ex P2, CB 1480). On 1 February 2021, Eden King lawyers served a certificate claiming legal fees and expenses totalling $54,077.32 incurred in representing 14 Defendants (Chambers 2 at [58]). The DCT submits that it follows that Mr Gazal used money from the NNG account to pay the legal fees of all 14 Defendants.

66. I accept this transaction was arguably in breach of the freezing order for that reason, although there may be a question whether the language “paying your reasonable legal expenses” in that exception order made sufficiently clear any limitation to the payment of the reasonable costs of Mr Gazal only, or how it dealt with the position if (which is not established) Mr Gazal had assumed liability to his legal representatives to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings before the freezing order was made. In any event, I am not persuaded to the requisite standard that that payment amounted to a contempt, where Mr Gazal’s legal advisers were plainly involved with it (by the issue of the subsequent supporting certificate) and it is not apparent that Mr Gazal should have recognised a breach of the order in paying costs of other associated Defendants if his legal representatives did not do so. I do not understand paragraph 22 of the ASC, which refers to a further withdrawal of $6,000 on 6 January 2021 to allege a breach of the freezing order and I note that the DCT made no submission as to breach of that order.

63. The third impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $40,700 on 21 January 2021 (ASC [23]–[28]). On 20 January 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Skybridge invoice 091 dated 31 December 2020 in an amount of $40,700 addressed to NG Holdings for purported work described as “Consultancy and feasibility studies for Wave @ 380 Princes Highway, Rockdale” and, in his covering email, confirmed that it was a “business expense” (Ex P2, CB 1527–1529). This is the first of six invoices that Mr Gazal presented or caused to be presented to ANZ and Bankwest seeking payment for works purportedly undertaken at Wave Rockdale. As I noted above, neither C9 Developments nor Jasara Constructions engaged Skybridge to perform any work in connection with the Wave Rockdale (Chanine 20.12.24 [6], Chambers 2 [19]) and there is no explanation as to why Belfield would pay for such work in relation to a third party’s development. I am satisfied this invoice is false, and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

64. The fourth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $69,520 on 4 February 2021 (ASC [33]–[38]). On 3 February 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Hawthorn invoice #37 dated 29 December 2020 (Ex P2, CB 1623–1624) in an amount of $69,520 addressed to NG Holdings and, in his covering email, described it as a “business expense”. The work purportedly done was described as:

“Jobs Rendered for units D7.14/D10.07/D4.22/B6.08 @ 580 Princes Hwy, Kirrawee NSW 2232: - refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for sale. – window furnishings – styling of each apartment”).

Mr Georgopoulos then sent that email and invoice to ANZ’s Statutory Compliance function referring to Mr Gazal’s request for “urgent payment”, his explanation to Mr Gazal of the need for “timer to process” and Mr Gazal’s explanation of urgency. There can be no doubt that Mr Gazal himself undertook this and many other transactions, although I also refer to other transactions where his legal advisers sent invoices to ANZ on his instructions.

69. This is the first of five invoices as to which Mr Gazal sought payment in 2021 in respect of works purportedly undertaken at South Village, Kirrawee. As I noted above, the strata managing agent has confirmed in response to a subpoena to the owners of SP98217 which comprise the apartments in buildings E and D (Chambers 2 [22]–[23]) that it has no documents to produce concerning approvals for the relevant work by Hawthorn. As I also noted above, I recognise that a single owner might have done such works without approval, but it is inconceivable that many owners did so over multiple units on multiple occasions. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

70. The fifth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $81,400 on 12 February 2021 (ASC [49]–[52]). On 12 February 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Hawthorn invoice #43 dated 28 January 2021 in an amount of $81,400 addressed to NG Holdings and again confirmed that it was a “business expense” (Ex P2, CB 1630–1631). The purported work was described in the invoice as:

“Jobs Rendered for units 13/15/19/23 Wave Project 380 Princes Hwy, Rockdale NSW 2216: – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. – Window furnishings – Styling of each apartment.”

71. This is the third invoice in relation to the Wave Rockdale location. By invoices #41, #43 and #57 Hawthorn invoiced for payment for corresponding work performed on the same units in the same development only weeks apart. I accept that it is highly unlikely that work would have been redone three times and charged for each time by the same contractor within a short time frame. Second, according to its registered strata plan, the Wave Rockdale does not have apartments numbered 13, 15, 19 and 23 (Ex P2, CB 2081). Again, such an error could occur, but it is highly unlikely that it would occur as many times as in this matter. Third, even if the references in the invoices were to “lot numbers” rather than unit numbers, neither C9 Developments nor Jasara Constructions engaged Hawthorn to perform any work in connection with the Wave (Chanine 20.12.24 [6]; Chambers 2 [19]). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

72. The sixth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $90,200 on 18 February 2021 (ASC [59]–[64]). On 17 February 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Skybridge invoice 0101 dated 3 February 2021 in an amount of $90,200 addressed to NG Holdings (Ex P2, CB 1634–1635) for purported work described as:

“Site: 3 Waruda Road, Kirribilli NSW 2061 Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies, Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining.”

73. The DCT points out that this property is a block of 18 units and each unit is individually owned. It submits, and I accept, that any request for assistance sourcing development opportunities or running feasibility studies would have to be made by the Owners’ Corporation on behalf of the owners (Chambers 2 [215]–[217]). Mr Byrne, the owner of Lot 30 in SP 515124 being 18/3 Waruda Street, Kirribilli, NSW and the chair of the strata committee of the Owners’ Corporation for each of the strata plans comprising the property has given evidence that the Owners’ Corporations did not instruct Skybridge or NG Holdings to perform the work claimed (Byrne 17.01.25 [2]–[7]). There is no apparent reason why NNG would require this work on a third party’s property. I am also satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

74. The seventh impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $90,200 on 8 March 2021 (ASC [71]–[76]). On 3 March 2021, Mr Gazal presented Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #50 dated 8 February 2021 in an amount of $90,200 addressed to NG Holdings for purported work described as “Jobs Rendered for units 505/1107/ 2207/2211 @ Ryde Gardens 1,3/5 Network Pl North Ryde NSW 2113 – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishings – styling of each apartment” (Ex P2, CB 1805–1806). This is the second invoice for the Ryde Garden location. This invoice also does not specify whether the apartments are located in buildings A, B and/or C, so it is not possible to identify in which apartment the works are said to have occurred. However, as I noted above, the evidence of the strata managers of each of buildings A, B and C at Ryde Gardens is that the works described in the invoices are likely to have required owners corporation approval and they can find no record of any approval and no reference in any of their records to Hawthorn, Belfield, Sawan and John Building Corp (Howell 13.01.25 [9]–[12]; Vanderwal 16.12.24 [7]–[12]). I recognise that a single owner might have done such works without approval, but it is inconceivable that many owners did so over multiple units on multiple occasions. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

75. The eighth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $97,900 on 16 March 2021 (ASC [83]–[88]). On 15 March 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #55 dated 26 February 2021 in an amount of $97,900 addressed to NG Holdings for purported work described as “Jobs Rendered for units E4.05/E4.21/ E3.22/E3.23 @ 580 Princes Hwy, Kirrawee NSW 2232: - replaced kitchen benchtop, splash back, tap ware and sink. Also added new oven and microwave – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishings and styling of each apartment”, which Mr Gazal described as a “business expense” (Ex P2, CB 1809–1810). This is the second invoice relating to purported work at the South Village location. As I noted above, the strata managing agent has confirmed in response to a subpoena to the owners of SP98217 which comprise the apartments in buildings E and D (Chambers 2 [22]–[23]) that it has no documents to produce concerning approvals for the relevant work by Hawthorn. I recognise that a single owner might have done such works without approval, but it is inconceivable that many owners did so over multiple units on multiple occasions. I am satisfied this invoice is false, and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

76. The ninth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $90,200 on 23 March 2021 (ASC [89]–[94]). On 18 March 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Skybridge invoice 0108 dated 3 March 2021 in an amount of $90,200 addressed to NG Holdings (Ex P2, CB 1865–1866) for purported work described as:

“Site: 275 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies, Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining.”

77. The DCT submits that there was no need for any development opportunity to be sourced or for a feasibility study to have been undertaken in 2021 because by that time the owner of that property, Margaret George Investment Custodian Pty Ltd (“Margaret George”), which acquired the building in 2018, had already received development approval and completed the building’s redevelopment almost only a year earlier; and Margaret George has confirmed that it did not instruct or engage Skybridge or NG Holdings to perform the work set out in this invoice (Chambers 2 [201]–[203]; Ex P2, CB 2700, 3040, 3136). There is no apparent reason why NNG would require this work on a third party’s property. I am also satisfied that this invoice is false and that Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

78. The tenth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $96,800 on 29 March 2021 (ASC [101]–[106]). On 26 March 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Georgopoulos of ANZ a Hawthorn invoice #57 dated 11 March 2021 in the amount of $96,800 addressed to NG Holdings and, in his covering email, described it as a “business expense” (Ex P2, CB 1872–1873). The purported work was described in the invoice as:

“Jobs Rendered for units 13/15/19/23 @ WAVE Project 380 Princes Hwy, Rockdale NSW 2216: - Replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishings and styling of each apartment.”

79. This is the fourth invoice in relation to the Wave Rockdale location. By invoices #41, #43 and #57 Hawthorn has claimed payment for corresponding work performed on the same units in the same development only weeks apart. I accept that it is highly unlikely that work would have been redone three times and charged for each time by the same contractor within a short time frame. Second, according to its registered strata plan, the Wave Rockdale does not have apartments numbered 13, 15, 19 and 23 and 24 (Ex P2, CB 2081). Again, such an error could occur, but it is highly unlikely that it would occur as many times as in this matter. Third, even if the references in the invoices were to “lot numbers” rather than unit numbers, neither C9 Developments nor Jasara Constructions engaged Hawthorn to perform any work in connection with the Wave (Chanine 20.12.24 [6], Chambers 2 [19]). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

80. The eleventh impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $96,800 on 7 April 2021 (ASC [111]–[116]). On 6 April 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #0114 dated 18 March 2021 in the amount of $96,800 addressed to NG Holdings for purported work described as “Jobs Rendered for units 12b/12c/12e/12g/12h @ Rhodes Central Project, Rhodes - Replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishings and styling of each apartment" (Ex P2, CB 1931–1932). This is the first of seven invoices that Mr Gazal presented or caused to be presented in respect of works purportedly undertaken at Rhodes Central to ANZ and Bankwest for payment. There are no lot numbers or units in buildings A, B, D and E which use the numbering convention 12b/12c /12e/12g /12h (Ex P2, CB 1381–1387; 1678–1681; 2165; 2490–2496; 2536–2538; 2609–2614; 2752–2756). I recognise that such an error could occur, but it is highly unlikely that different suppliers made the same error on multiple occasions. Invoice 326 from Sawan to NG Sydney Corporation claims for work performed to units 12B and 12C (see [140] below) and invoice #0114 from Hawthorn to NG Holdings has also claimed for corresponding work performed to units 12B and 12C. As I noted above, it is highly unlikely that two companies both controlled by Mr Gazal would then pay for corresponding work twice and do so as many times as occurs in this matter. In response to a subpoena issued by the DCT, Walker Street, the developer of Stage 1, has confirmed that it has no documents which record instructions to, or the engagement of, Hawthorn, Belfield or Sawan (Ex P2, CB 2997). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

81. The twelfth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $99,000 on 9 April 2021 (ASC [117]–[122]). On 8 April 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Skybridge invoice 0113 dated 24 March 2021 in an amount of $99,000 addressed to NG Holdings (Ex P2, CB 1933–1934) for purported work described as:

“Site: 185-187 Kent street Sydney Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies, Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining”.

82. The DCT points out that, in 1996, the Stamford Hotel Group purchased a 20-storey office tower located at 183-187 Kent Street, Millers Point, NSW and redeveloped the site into a mix of hotel rooms and luxury apartments (Chambers 2 [158]–[159]); and 187 Kent Street is now known as the Grand Apartments and it has a registered strata plan SP 61897 (Chambers 2 [153]). The strata managing agent for the Grand Apartments has given evidence that the owners’ corporation has not instructed or engaged Skybridge or NG Holdings to perform any work (Roberts 30.1.25 [8]). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

83. The thirteenth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $96,800 on 13 April 2021 (ASC [123]–[128]). On 13 April 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Cardakaris of ANZ a Hawthorn invoice #0116 dated 29 March 2021 in the amount of $96,800 addressed to NG Holdings and confirmed in the covering email that it was a business expense and Mr Cardakaris forwarded that email to ANZ’s Statutory Compliance function, implicitly for approval to allow the payment (Ex P2, CB 1935–1936). The purported work was described in the invoice as:

“Jobs Rendered for units 14a/14b/14d/14f /14j @ Rhodes Central Project, Rhodes - Replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave –refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishings and styling of each apartment.”

84. This is the second invoice relating to the Rhoes Central location. There are no lot numbers or units in buildings A, B, D and E which use the numbering convention 14a /14b/14d/14f/14j (Ex P2, CB 1381–1387; 1678–1681; 2165; 2490–2496; 2536–2538; 2609–2614; 2752–2756). I recognise that such an error could occur, but it is highly unlikely that different suppliers made the same error on multiple occasions. As I noted above, in response to a subpoena issued by the DCT, Walker Street, the developer of Stage 1, has confirmed that it has no documents which record instructions to, or the engagement of, Hawthorn (Ex P2, CB 2997). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

85. The fourteenth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $26,493.50 on 15 April 2021 (ASC [129]–[134]). I allowed the parties an opportunity to make additional submissions as to this transaction which was not addressed by the DCT’s submissions in chief. The DCT points out that, on 14 April 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Cardakaris of ANZ (Ex P2, CB 1937–1938) an invoice 24357 issued in the name of Marketing Warehouse in the amount of $26,493.50 addressed to NG Holdings dated 1 March 2021 for purported work described as:

“Marketing Strategy and Campaign Development Beyond Project and Development, Forest Road Hurstville, integrating Woolworths. Scope includes Leasing Brochure and Future Web Campaign.”

86. I accept that payment of this invoice (as with many invoices) was not within the exception of the freezing order, where it was made out to NG Holdings rather than to NNG Holdings, and there is no reason to think that was a typographical error where it occurs in many invoices. I also recognise that NNG could not have lawfully carried on business on the scale claimed in the invoices, because it was not registered for GST (Ex P2, CB 3169–3170; Trotman 23.2.25 [5]). The DCT submits that there is no evidence that NNG was involved in any Forest Road Hurstville project or had incurred any business expenses in connection with the same; however, the DCT bears the onus of establishing the charge in a contempt application. I am not satisfied that the evidence as to this charge establishes it, where it is not more probable than not that the invoice was false, even bearing in mind the evidence as a whole, rather than that, for example, NG Holdings or NNG were involved in this project without registering for GST.

87. The fifteenth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $99,000 on 28 April 2021 (ASC [141]–[146]). On or around 22 April 2021, Mr Gazal sent Mr Cardakaris of ANZ a Skybridge invoice 0120 dated 5 April 2021 in an amount of $99,000 addressed to NG Holdings (Ex P2, CB 1943–1944) for purported work described as:

“Site: 32-36 York Street Sydney Sourcing development opportunities Running feasibility studies Consulting experts regarding land valuation, construction costing and market realisation for the end product. Due Diligence information gathering and examining.”

88. The DCT points out that 32-36 York Street, Sydney, NSW does not exist (Chambers 2 [185]) and the owners of a building at 32-34 York Street, Sydney, NSW did not instruct Skybridge or NG Holdings to perform the work described in that invoice, including “sourcing development opportunities”, because the owners already had development approval to redevelop the building which they obtained on 11 December 2020 and construction had already commenced (Chambers 2 [185]-[191]).

89. The sixteenth impugned transaction is a payment from NNG’s account of $95,700 on 30 April 2021 (ASC [147]–[152]). On or around 29 April 2021, Mr Gazal presented ANZ with Hawthorn invoice #0122 dated 7 April 2021 in the amount of $95,700 addressed to NG Holdings for purported work described as “Jobs Rendered for units H202/H301/H303/H304/H306 @RouseGarden project 1 Rouse Road, Rouse Hill - Replaced kitchen bench top, splash back, tap ware and sink. also added new oven and microwave – refurbishment and repainting of apartments to prepare them for NDIS purposes. Bathroom upgrades with easing of access – window furnishings and styling of each apartment” (Ex P2, CB 1945–1946). This is the second invoice relating to the Rouse Garden location. While the DCT raises a question as to the references in the form “Hxxx” in this invoice, I am not satisfied to the requisite standard that this invoice is false or that Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order. That is not, of course, to say that I have any conviction that the invoice is true.

“Works completed for Units 12B/12C/12D:

Replaced bench top, splash back, tap ware, sink. Upgraded oven and range top to Miele appliances. Repainting of the area. Refurbishment and repainting of the living and bedrooms. Replaced timber flooring and carpets. Replaced window furnishing in the living room”.

141. This is the sixth invoice relating to the Rhodes Central location. There are no lot numbers or units in buildings A, B, D and E which use the numbering convention 12B/12C/12D (Ex P2, CB 1381–1387; 1678–1681; 2165; 2490–2496; 2536-2538; 2609–2614; 2752–2756). I recognise that such an error could occur but it is highly unlikely that different suppliers made the same error on multiple occasions. This invoice claims for work performed to units 12B and 12C and invoice #0114 from Hawthorn to NG Holdings has also claimed for corresponding work performed to the same units. As I noted above, it is highly unlikely that two companies both controlled by Mr Gazal would then pay for corresponding work twice and do so as many times as occurs in this matter. As I noted above, in response to a subpoena issued by the DCT, Walker Street, the developer of Stage 1, has confirmed that it has no documents which record instructions to, or the engagement of, Sawan (Ex P2, CB 2997). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

142. The eighth impugned transaction is a payment from NG Sydney’s account of $115,500 in respect of an invoice dated 1 March 2023 (ASC [370]–[375]). On 8 March 2023, the solicitors acting for NG Sydney sent Bankwest, with a copy to Mr Gazal, invoice 130 from John Building Corp to NG Sydney dated 1 March 2023 in the amount of $115,500 (Ex P2, CB 2214–2216) described as:

“Jobs rendered for units 1307/1308/1410/1412/1414 @ 18-20 Ocean Street, Bondi NSW Description Repairing and repainting all interior walls Replaced all bathroom amenities Replaced timber flooring in all bedrooms Replaced washer & dryer Replaced window furnishings”.

143. The DCT points out that the relevant property, the Moreton Bondi is a residential apartment building comprising 190 apartments spread across five buildings A, B, C, D and E, and was completed in 2016 (Chambers 2 [102]). The DCT also points out that units 1307/1308/1410/1412/1414 do not exist, as shown by the registered strata plan for the block (Ex P2, CB 3076). While I recognise the possibility of error in an invoice, I think it highly unlikely that there would be multiple incorrect reference to non-existent properties in genuine invoices. I am satisfied to the requisite standard that this invoice is false and the payment was made in breach of the freezing order.

144. The ninth impugned transaction is a payment from NG Sydney’s account of $123,750 in respect of an invoice dated 2 March 2023 (ASC [376]–[381]). On 10 March 2023, the solicitors acting for NG Sydney sent Bankwest, with a copy to Mr Gazal, invoice 0330 from Sawan to NG Sydney dated 2 March 2023 in the amount of $123,750 (Ex P2, CB 2217–2219) for work described as:

“Works completed for Units 13/15/19: Replaced bench top, splash back, tap ware, sink. Upgraded oven and range top to Fisher & Paykel appliances. Repainting of the area. Refurbishment and repainting of the living and bedrooms. Replaced timber flooring and carpets. Replaced window furnishing in the living room”.

145. By this invoice, Sawan claimed for work corresponding to that allegedly performed by Hawthorn two years earlier to the same apartments as set out in invoices #41, #43 and #57 which I have addressed above. Second, according to its registered strata plan, the Wave Rockdale does not have apartments numbered 13, 15 and 19 (Ex P2, CB 2081), although it does have lot numbers in that form, but it is highly unlikely that it would occur as many times as in this matter. I am not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to find that this invoice was false to the requisite standard, although it may well have been.

146. The tenth impugned transaction is a payment from NG Sydney’s account of $112,750 in respect of an invoice dated 2 March 2023 (ASC [382]–[387]). On 13 March 2023, the solicitors acting for NG Sydney sent CBA, with a copy to Mr Gazal, invoice 133 from John Building Corp to NG Sydney dated 2 March 2023 in the amount of $112,750 (Ex P2, CB 2220–2222) for purported work described as:

“Jobs rendered for units 903 /908 /1010 / 1012 /1014 @ 15 Dora Street Hurstville NSW Description Repairing and repainting all interior walls Replaced all bathroom amenities Replaced timber flooring in all bedrooms Replaced washer & dryer Replaced window furnishings."

147. The evidence indicates that Adora Hurstville is a residential development comprising 51 apartments over 13 storeys which was completed in 2019 (Chambers 2 [96]). I accept that the evidence establishes, to the requisite standard, that this invoice is false and fraudulent, and not merely mistaken, in the context of the pattern of conduct that is established. Units 908, 1010, 1012 and 1014 in that development do not exist and do not appear on the registered strata plan: (Ex P2, CB 1098). The owner of unit 903, which appears on the registered strata plan, has given evidence that she has owned the property since about 17 October 2019 (when it was completed) and she did not instruct John Building Corp to perform the works claimed in invoice 0133: (Yu 2.1.25 [4]). I am satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Gazal procured this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

148. The eleventh impugned transaction is a payment from NG Sydney’s account of $106,920 in respect of an invoice dated 6 March 2023 (ASC [388]–[393]). On 14 March 2023, Mr Gazal presented Bankwest with invoice 0135 from John Building Corp to NG Sydney dated 6 March 2023 in the amount of $106,920 (Ex P2, CB 2223–2225) for purported work performed as:

“Jobs rendered for units D9.02/D9.04/D9.06/D9.08/D9.10/D9.12 @ 580 Princes Hwy Kirrawee NSW Description Repairing and repainting all interior walls; Replaced all bathroom amenities; Replaced timber flooring in all bedrooms; Replaced washer & dryer; Replaced window furnishings”

149. This invoice also relates to the South Village location. The DCT points out that units D9.10 and D9.12 referred to in invoice 0135 do not exist (Ex P2, CB 1157, 1175). While I accept that an error could occur in apartment descriptions, I do not accept that it could occur so regularly as seen in this matter in genuine invoices where the work had been done. As I noted above, the strata managing agent has also confirmed in response to a subpoena to the owners of SP98217 which comprise the apartments in buildings E and D (Chambers 2 [22]–[23]) that it has no documents to produce concerning approvals for work to be performed on the units that do exist by John Building Corporation. I recognise that a single owner might have done such works without approval, but it is inconceivable that many owners did so over multiple units on multiple occasions. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

150. The twelfth impugned transaction is a payment from NG Sydney’s account of $120,450 in respect of an invoice dated 3 March 2023 (ASC [394]–[399]). On 13 March 2023, the solicitors acting for NG Sydney sent Bankwest, with a copy to Mr Gazal, invoice 332 from Sawan to NG Sydney dated 3 March 2023 in the amount of $120,450 (Ex P2, CB 2226–2228) for purported work described as:

“Works completed for Units 10B/10C/10D: Replaced bench top, splash back, tap ware, sink. Upgraded oven and range top to Miele appliances. Repainting of the area. Refurbishment and repainting of the living and bedrooms. Replaced timber flooring and carpets”.

151. This is the seventh invoice relating to the Rhodes Central location. There are no lot numbers or units in buildings A, B, D and E which use the numbering convention 10B/10C/10D (Ex P2, CB 1381–1387; 1678-1681; 2165; 2490–2496; 2536-2538; 2609–2614; 2752–2756). I recognise that such an error could occur but it is highly unlikely that different suppliers made the same error on multiple occasions. This invoice claims for work performed to units 10C and 10D and invoice #0138 from Hawthorn to Belfield also claims for corresponding work performed to the same units. As I have noted above, it is highly unlikely that two companies both controlled by Mr Gazal would then pay for corresponding work twice and do so as many times as occurs in this matter. As I noted above, in response to a subpoena issued by the DCT, Walker Street, the developer of Stage 1, has confirmed that it has no documents which record instructions to, or the engagement of, Sawan (Ex P2, CB 2997). I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

152. The thirteenth impugned transaction is a payment from NG Sydney’s account of $122,100 in respect of an invoice dated 7 March 2023 (ASC [400]–[405]). On 15 March 2023, the solicitors acting for NG Sydney sent Bankwest, with a copy to Mr Gazal, invoice 336 from Sawan to NG Sydney dated 7 March 2023 in the amount of $122,100 (Ex P2, CB 2229–2231) for purported work described as:

“Works completed for Units 509/511/512: Replaced bench top, splash back, tap ware, sink. Upgraded oven and range top to Mielel (sic) appliances. Repainting of the area. Refurbishment and repainting of the living and bedrooms. Replaced timber flooring and carpets”.

153. This is the sixth invoice for the Ryde Garden location. This invoice also does not specify whether the apartments are located in buildings A, B and/or C, so it is not possible to identify in which apartment the works are said to have occurred. However, as I noted above, the evidence of the strata managers of each of buildings A, B and C at Ryde Gardens is that the works described in the invoices are likely to have required owners corporation approval and they can find no record of any approval and no reference in any of their records to Hawthorn, Belfield, Sawan and John Building Corp (Howell 13.01.25 [9]–[12]; Vanderwal 16.12.24 [7]–[12]). I recognise that a single owner might have done such works without approval, but it is inconceivable that many owners did so over multiple units on multiple occasions. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

154. The fourteenth impugned transaction is a payment from NG Sydney’s account of $118,800 in respect of an invoice dated 8 March 2023 (ASC [406]-[411]). On 17 March 2023, the solicitors acting for NG Sydney sent Bankwest, with a copy to Mr Gazal, invoice 0137 from John Building Corp to NG Sydney dated 8 March 2023 in the amount of $118,800 (Ex P2, CB 2234–2236) for purported work described as:

“Jobs rendered for units 601/602/604/606/608/609 @ 56A-62 Penkivil Street, Bondi, NSW Description Repairing and repainting all interior walls Replaced all bathroom amenities Replaced timber flooring in all bedrooms Replaced washer & dryer Replaced window furnishings”.

155. It appears that the relevant property, Crown Bondi, is a residential property development consisting of 31 apartments that was completed in 1999. The DCT points out that, according to its registered strata plan (SP 60648 (Ex P2, CB 453)) and its strata manager, level six of The Crown Bondi has only four apartments (Chambers 2 [89]) and units 606, 608 and 609 referred to in invoice 0137 do not exist (Tsibulya 22.01.25 [8]). Again, while error is possible, it is highly unlikely that it would occur to the extent seen in this matter. Mr Tsibulya, the strata manager of the Crown Bondi has given evidence that he has no records of any approvals or requests for approvals to perform work on apartments 601, 602 and 604 of the Crown (Tsibulya 22.01.25 [10]–[13]). I recognise that a single owner might have done such works without approval, but it is inconceivable that many owners did so over multiple units on multiple occasions. I am satisfied this invoice is false and Mr Gazal caused this payment in deliberate breach of the freezing order.

156. The fifteenth impugned transaction is a payment from NG Sydney’s account of $97,350 in respect of an invoice dated 14 March 2023 (ASC [412]–[417]). On 22 March 2023, the solicitors acting for NG Sydney sent Bankwest, with a copy to Mr Gazal, invoice 140 from John Building Corp to NG Sydney dated 14 March 2023 in the amount of $97,350 (Ex P2, CB 2241–2244) for work described as:

“Jobs rendered for units 6/8/10 @ Macpherson Street Bronte NSW Description Repairing and repainting all interior walls Replaced all bathroom amenities Replaced timber flooring in all bedrooms Replaced washer & dryer Replaced window furnishings”.

157. This is the third invoice relating to this property. The DCT points out that, according to registered strata plan 99129 (Ex P2, CB 1037), there are no units with the numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 at 113 Macpherson Street, Bronte, NSW. While I recognise the possibility of error in an invoice, I think it highly unlikely that there would be multiple incorrect reference to non-existent properties in genuine invoices. I am satisfied to the requisite standard that this invoice is false and the payment was made in breach of the freezing order.

158. By the completion of these transactions, the balance of NG Sydney’s account was reduced from $1,709,827.46 to $897.54 (ASC [418]). I find, for the purposes of the DCT’s case against Mr Gazal, that the necessary elements to find NG Sydney liable for contempt are established to the requisite standard, for the reasons noted above, in respect of the transactions identified above. However, I defer any determination as to whether NG Sydney is itself liable for contempt to the point at which it is reinstated, should that occur.

Whether a contempt by Mr Gazal is established in respect of the impugned transactions

159. Mr Kelly and Mr Scott submit, and I accept, that the case law establishes that, where a company is ordered not to do certain acts and a director of that company knows of that order, he or she is under a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the order is obeyed, and if he wilfully fails to take those steps and the order is breached he or she can be punished for contempt: Attorney-General for Tuvalu v Philatelic Distribution Corporation Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 926 at 936; Mahaffy v Mahaffy (2018) 97 NSWLR 119; [2018] NSWCA 42 at [121]-[124], [251] and [291]; BCEG International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Xiao [2023] NSWSC 57 at [37], where Darke J observed that:

“In my opinion, Mr Xiao is guilty of contempt of court, based on the principle stated in Attorney-General for Tuvalu v Philatelic Distribution Corporation Ltd (supra) and accepted by the Court of Appeal in Mahaffy v Mahaffy (supra). Mr Xiao was a director (indeed the sole director) of WWMP. That company, by the Freezing Order Undertaking, had undertaken not to do certain acts (including the acts referred to in paragraph 6(a)). Mr Xiao, as a party to the Freezing Order Undertaking, was plainly aware of the undertaking. He was therefore under a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the undertaking was obeyed by WWMP. Mr Xiao wilfully failed to take those steps. Instead, he actively took steps to cause the company to enter into the transaction without having first given the requisite notice to the plaintiff. The company thereby breached paragraph 6(a). That breach constituted a contempt of court on the part of WWMP, and in my view Mr Xiao should also be held to be in contempt in respect of that breach.”

160. I am similarly satisfied here, to the requisite standard, that Mr Gazal is guilty of contempt of court, in respect of the transactions identified above, on this basis. Mr Gazal was the sole director of Belfield, NNG and NG Sydney, each of which was bound by the relevant orders not to do certain acts which is had done in paying out funds that were not in payment of ordinary business expenses and not otherwise within an exception to the freezing orders. Mr Gazal was plainly aware of these orders, as party to the proceedings, and that is emphasised by his discussions of them with Mr Georgopoulos. He was therefore under a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the undertaking was obeyed by each of the companies. He deliberately failed to take those steps and actively took steps, himself and through NG Sydney’s solicitors, to cause each of the companies to make numerous payments in substantial amounts in breach of the freezing orders. That breach constituted a contempt of court on the part of each company (although the question of NG Sydney’s liability for that contempt has been deferred until its reinstatement) and Mr Gazal should also be held to be in contempt in respect of that breach, as to each of the transactions as to which a breach was found above.

Dealings with the amounts paid out

161. The DCT leads evidence which raises at least the possibility that the funds paid out of the relevant accounts to third parties were then remitted, at least in part, to Mr Gazal, or associated persons. It is not necessary for it to establish that matter in order to establish the contempts that I have found above, although that matter may well be relevant in the penalty stage of this application. I will briefly refer to this evidence here.

162. Ther DCT points out that, between 21 January 2021 and 29 July 2021, there were 20 transfers of funds from ANZ to a CBA account maintained by Skybridge (Chambers 1 [61]; Ex P2, CB 1947–1962). The DCT noted that $746,505 of the amounts received by Skybridge had not yet been traced because CBA had not yet produced bank statements for the period pre-dating 19 April 2021; a further amount was then transferred to an unidentified CBA account, and $809,894 was transferred to a CBA account in the name of Mr Yigit. The DCT also points out that, between 4 February 2021 and 23 July 2021, there were 30 transfers of funds from ANZ to a CBA account maintained by Hawthorn (Chambers 1 [65]; Ex P2, CB 2090) and of the amounts paid to Hawthorn, $784,983 was also transferred to Mr Yigit (Chambers 1 [91]). The DCT contends that, between December 2020 and December 2022, Mr Yigit made numerous transfers of funds to Mr Gazal. This evidence raises the possibility that Mr Gazal benefitted from the relevant payments, but it is not necessary to reach, and I do not reach, a finding as to that matter at this point. I recognise it may need to be addressed at the penalty hearing.

163. The DCT points out that, between 20 February 2023 and 14 March 2023, nine payments were made from the NG Sydney account to John Building Corp (Chambers 1 [77]) and, between 24 February 2023 and 7 March 2023, six payments were made to Sawan (Chambers 1 [82]; Ex P2, CB 3236–3349). While any benefit to Mr Gazal from those payments has not yet been established, I recognise that matter may also need to be addressed at the penalty hearing.

Orders and costs

164. I have found the large majority of the invoices supporting withdrawals from the accounts that were the subject of freezing orders to be false and I have found the other elements of contempt on the part of Mr Gazal are established to the requisite standard. I will make a declaration as to Mr Gazal’s liability in respect of the charges of contempt against him, to give effect to the findings that I have reached above. For completeness, and as I noted above, the DCT did not press a further charge (ASC [419]–[421]) alleging non-disclosure by Mr Gazal of certain personal property in his disclosure affidavit sworn pursuant to the freezing orders and I do not address that further claim.

165. I direct the parties to bring in agreed short minutes of order to give effect to this judgment within 14 days, which will need to address the steps to be taken as to evidence and submissions in the penalty hearing or, if there is no agreement, their respective short minutes of order and short submissions as to the differences between them. I will defer the question of costs to the conclusion of the penalty hearing.

**********

Decision last updated: 25 June 2025