Gemi 169 Pty Ltd v Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd; Shamoon v F & L Violi Pty Ltd (No 9) - [2025] NSWSC 975

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: GEMI 169 Pty Ltd v Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd; Shamoon v F & L Violi Pty Ltd (No 9) [2025] NSWSC 975
Hearing dates: 28 July - 31 July, 4 - 7, 11 and 12 August 2025, further submissions 21 and 22 August 2025
Date of orders: 28 August 2025
Decision date: 28 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Peden J
Decision:
See [501]

Catchwords:
MORTGAGES AND SECURITIES – Mortgages – Registered mortgages – Attendant loan agreements – Where third tier lenders register mortgages against titles to commercial properties – Mortgagor disclaims having executed loan agreements – Mortgagor contends impersonators forged signatures on loan agreements voiding mortgages – Signatures on agreements unusual and uncharacteristic – Sums advanced allegedly for development of non-existent cryptocurrency – Cryptocurrency promoted by suspicious persons – Whether mortgagor’s director authorised loans and mortgages – Whether mortgages enforceable against mortgagor’s properties – Mortgages executed at behest and to knowledge of director of mortgagor – Mortgages enforceable – No issue of principle
MORTGAGES AND SECURITIES – Mortgages – Equitable mortgages – Equitable mortgage of legal interest – Attendant loan agreement – Where private lender advanced money on solicitor’s assurance that repayment guaranteed by mortgage – Where purpose of loan in recital expressed to be renovation and development of mortgagor’s commercial shopping centre – Where purpose of loan also represented to be for bank fee for release of “sovereign funds” for cryptocurrency – Whether purported mortgagor executed loan agreement and agreed to grant mortgage – Whether solicitor alternatively liable to lender for breach of retainer or misleading or deceptive conduct – Purported equitable mortgage ineffectual – Claim against solicitor for breach of retainer upheld – Claim against solicitor for misleading or deceptive conduct upheld
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Court administration – Overriding purpose – Just, quick and cheap resolution – Obligations on parties and legal practitioners to assist Court in furthering overriding purpose – Preparation and quality of court books –Parties fail to provide court books in accordance with Court orders – Parties provide assurance at subsequent directions hearing that breach has been rectified – Court books ultimately delivered overly voluminous, not presented in chronological order, and required further insertions prior to trial – Fraction of documents in court books relied on at trial – Whether such conduct consistent with parties and practitioners’ obligations to further overriding purpose – No issue of principle

Legislation Cited:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CB
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 58(1), 135
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 56
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) ss 28(1), 32(1)
Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW) ss 4(1), 5(1), 28
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) ss 56C, 129

Cases Cited:
Adelaide Concrete Cutting & Drilling Pty Ltd v Marino (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 499
Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) (2012) 207 FCR 448
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640
Australian Financial Services Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
David v Livingstone (Liquidator); Re Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) (in liq) [2023] FCA 1663
Elite Realty Development Pty Ltd v Sadek [2022] NSWSC 1333
Gregg v R [2020] NSWCCA 245
Gulic v Boral Transport Ltd [2016] NSWCA 269
Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors [2018] AC 599
Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v NSW (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (2002) 210 CLR 109
Jeans v Cleary [2006] NSWSC 647
Kowalczuk v Accom Finance Pty Ltd (2008) 77 NSWLR 205
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361
McLennan v Clapham [2019] ACTSC 1
National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309
Nevin v B & R Enclosures Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 339
Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92
Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Milanex Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2011] NSWCA 367
Peter Sleiman Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] NSWCA 81
Polon v Dorian [2014] NSWSC 571
PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2021] NSWCA 312
Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134
Re HIH Insurance Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 482
RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Ianni [2016] NSWCA 270
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850; 154 ER 363
Satz v ACN 069 808 957 Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 365
Skinner v Redmond Family Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 329
Wyzenbeek v Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in liq) (2019) 272 FCR 373
Zervas v Burkitt (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 236

Texts Cited:
Practice Note SC Eq 3

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
2022/00181916:
GEMI 169 Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff; First Cross-Defendant)
GI 214 Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff; Second Cross-Defendant)
Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd (First Defendant; Fifth Cross-Defendant)
John Ata Alan Lutui (Second Defendant; Fourth Cross-Defendant)
F & L Violi Pty Ltd (Third Defendant; First Cross-Claimant)
Francesco Paul Violi (Fourth Defendant; Second Cross-Claimant)
Fred David (Fifth Defendant; Third Cross-Defendant)
Jason La Rocca (Sixth Defendant)
Pacific Carbon Group Pty Ltd (Seventh Defendant)
Registrar-General of New South Wales (Sixth Cross-Defendant)
2023/00219378:
Elias Shamoon (Plaintiff; First Cross-Defendant)
F & L Violi Pty Ltd (First Defendant; Cross-Claimant)
Pacific Carbon Group Pty Ltd (Second Defendant; Third Cross-Defendant)
Fred David (Third Defendant; Second Cross-Defendant)
Suzy David (Fourth Defendant)
GEMI 169 Pty Ltd (Nineteenth Defendant)
GI 214 Pty Ltd (Twentieth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
2022/00181916:
M Ashhurst SC, H Somerville, D Meyerowitz-Katz and M McGirr (Plaintiffs; First and Second Cross-Defendants)
S Golledge SC, D Edney and A Keevers (Third and Fourth Defendants; Cross-Claimants)
D Miller SC and T Kane (Fifth Defendant; Third Cross-Defendant)
H Altan and C Angus (Sixth Cross-Defendant)

2023/00219378:
F Corsaro SC and D Ratnam (Plaintiff; First Cross-Defendant)
S Golledge SC, D Edney and A Keevers (First Defendant; Cross-Claimant)
D Miller SC and T Kane (Third and Fourth Defendants; Second Cross-Defendant)
M Ashhurst SC, H Somerville, D Meyerowitz-Katz and M McGirr (Nineteenth and Twentieth Defendants)

Solicitors:
2022/00181916:
Summer Lawyers (Plaintiffs; First and Second Cross-Defendants)
Benjamin J Horne (Third and Fourth Defendants; Cross-Claimants)
Moray & Agnew (Fifth Defendant; Third Cross-Defendant)
2023/00219378:
McNally Jones Staff (Plaintiff; First Cross-Defendant)
Benjamin J Horne (First Defendant; Cross-Claimant)
Moray & Agnew (Third and Fourth Defendants; Second Cross-Defendant)
Summer Lawyers (Nineteenth and Twentieth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2022/00181916
2023/00219378
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Summary of conclusions
GEMI lenders’ case
Shamoon loan
Alternative claims?

Mr Glenn, Suria Malaysia and “CDX”
Mr Violi’s relationship with Mr Glenn
Financial needs of Mr La Rocca, Mr Glenn and Mr David in 2019-2020
Alleged sale of Strathfield
Deed of guarantee and indemnity
Meeting at David Legal offices 28 February 2020
Witnesses to Mr Violi being at the offices
Mr David “certifying” Mr Violi’s identification documentation
Mr Violi’s phone’s whereabouts
Mr Violi authorised the loans and mortgages
Other reasons why Mr Violi's evidence is not credible

Meeting on 1 March 2020 – GEMI loan documents signed
AON insurance certificates record GEMI as interested party
Advances of GEMI loan money
First tranche
Second tranche
Third tranche, caveats and mortgage
Fourth tranche
Deed of variation, possible further loan and movement of money
Mr La Rocca’s ‘threats’ and Mr Violi’s knowledge of mortgages
Denial of engagement with Mr Vasic
Further movement of money
Mr Violi admits loans and is aware of deed of guarantee
Extension of GEMI loan
Second extension of GEMI loan

GI 214 loan
Attempts to refinance the GEMI loans
Mr David seeking alternative loans - Shamoon loan
Attempts to extend GEMI and GI 214 loans
Admissibility of documents concerning Mr Lutui
Did Mr Violi sign the Shamoon loan?
Further attempts to refinance the GEMI loans

Bridge Street Capital loan
Mr Violi trying to pressure Mr Glenn and Mr David for loans to be paid out
14 Lenders’ loan
Mr David’s attempts to hold off lenders
Concerns about Mr David’s conduct
Shamoon case
Pacific Carbon
David Legal
Breach of retainer
Misleading or deceptive conduct

Shamoon remedy and David defences
Limitation of liability – professional standards scheme
Contributory negligence of Mr Shamoon?

How the case was run
Conclusion
Appropriate orders

JUDGMENT

Coming for the first time to the evidence in this case, it would be reasonable to draw conclusions drawn from a witness’ messages:

Well something definitely does not add up here !!!
Either you really don’t know or you are not telling me ??
Because it’s strange, everything about it is totally strange and nothing makes sense.
That’s ok, the truth will ALWAYS COME OUT [smiley face emoji] [winking face with tongue emoji]

Nevertheless, it has been necessary to make sense of doctored documents, the transfer of millions of dollars offshore for unexplained purposes, non-existent cryptocurrency, “sovereign funds”, and apparently recurrent forged signatures. Also, persons, who must know important details of the transactions involved, have fled the jurisdiction or did not give evidence. Other witness testimony is inconsistent, such that some must at least be mistaken, if not lying. It has been impossible to explain the findings of the essential facts without a detailed recording of what occurred during many meetings, emails, phone calls and message exchanges.
In these two proceedings being heard together, three third tier lenders advanced over $28 million on short term loans and have not been repaid and seek to enforce their security. Due to default interest rates over $80 million is now claimed to be owing.
The two major lenders are, in chronological order, GEMI 169 Pty Ltd (GEMI) and GI 214 Pty Ltd (GI 214) (together, the GEMI lenders). In 2020 and early 2021, they loaned together over $25,000,000 to a corporate borrower, Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd (Suria Australia). The GEMI lenders share a common director and controller, Mr Justin Epstein, who is apparently a billionaire and also owns part of a cryptocurrency exchange. They respectively have first and second registered mortgages over F & L Violi Pty Ltd’s (FLV) properties, being a shopping centre in Griffith and a commercial property in Strathfield. Those properties were allegedly proffered as security for the loans.
A third lender is Mr Elias Shamoon, who in March 2021 loaned $2,000,000 ostensibly to FLV in return for $4,000,000 being repaid in 70 days. Mr Shamoon claimed unregistered equitable mortgages over FLV’s properties.
A fourth loan of $2,200,000 was made by a consortium of 14 investors to FLV in January 2022, secured with third registered mortgages over FLV’s properties (the 14 Lenders loan). They resolved their dispute with FLV shortly before the hearing on undisclosed terms.
FLV’s sole director, Mr Francesco (Frank) Violi, claimed he never knew of or signed the relevant agreements or mortgages, and instead, in Mr Violi’s words, the loans and mortgages were “a stitch up” and his identity had been stolen, with his name having been fraudulently signed on various documents.
The GEMI lenders, and it appears Mr Shamoon, accepted that the relevant documents do not bear Mr Violi’s usual signature, but nevertheless asserted that FLV is liable and they are entitled to rely on the mortgages. They say however the documents were signed, Mr Violi authorised the loans, knew of the mortgages and personally received the benefit of some of the money.
A solicitor, Mr Fred David, claimed to have been acting for FLV in all the transactions. Mr David is a practising solicitor and a principal of Fairfield’s David Legal, together with his sister, Ms Suzy David. Mr David is not a transactional lawyer and does not regularly deal with loans or mortgages or conveyancing. His asserted experience is in commercial litigation and criminal matters. Nevertheless, he is the solicitor who was actively involved with the negotiations of the loans, mortgages and their documentation; he drafted the documents for the Shamoon loan. Mr David often met those involved in the loans on weekends and after ordinary business hours. Mr David further said he obtained instructions from Mr Violi and witnessed his signatures on the relevant documents.
However, Mr Violi considered Mr David part of the “stitch up”, together with a Mr Jason La Rocca and a Mr John Ata Alan Lutui.
Mr La Rocca was Mr David’s client in relation to a drug importation charge and also a friend of Mr Violi’s son, Anthony Violi. Mr La Rocca is a defendant in the proceedings, because he received some of the loan money, but he took no active part and did not give evidence. He has left the jurisdiction and is apparently in Thailand.
Mr Lutui is a director of companies involved in the loans. In 2023, he fled the jurisdiction. His brother-in-law is Mr Alex Glenn. Mr Glenn and Mr La Rocca had known each other for close to 20 years.
In about 2018, Mr Glenn was involved in an alleged crypto-currency scheme called “Carbon Dollar X” (CDX). He also worked with a Malaysian company, Suria Global (L) Ltd (Suria Malaysia), which apparently held a logging concession over a forested area in Fiji and may have been trying to obtain a Malaysian banking licence. Suria Malaysia apparently supported Mr Glenn’s CDX scheme. Suria Malaysia was the “parent” company of Suria Australia, the borrower of the GEMI loans, which was incorporated by Mr David in 2019.
Suria Malaysia was Suria Australia’s sole shareholder between 19 November 2019 and 27 February 2020, and Mr Lutui was the sole director and more recent sole shareholder. However, none of the loan money from the GEMI lenders was paid to Suria Australia. For reasons which are not apparent from the evidence, almost $5,000,000 of the loan money was advanced to Pacific Carbon Group Pty Ltd (Pacific Carbon), trading as “CDX Australia”, a company controlled by Mr Lutui, which is now deregistered.
Other loan money was advanced to persons including Mr Violi, Mr La Rocca and Mr David’s trust account on behalf of Mr La Rocca, Mr Glenn and others, and foreign entities.

Summary of conclusions

In order to determine the primary issue, which is whether Mr Violi signed or authorised the loans and mortgages over FLV’s properties, it is necessary to make sense of conflicting evidence of witnesses in the context of volumes of emails, text messages and other documents, and without evidence from key persons such as Mr La Rocca and Mr Lutui and others. As noted below, I have given primary weight to contemporaneous documents, particularly where the oral testimony of witnesses is inconsistent.
Because of the volume of material and the necessity to set out findings of fact in some detail, it is appropriate first to provide an overview of the conclusions for the various claims.

GEMI lenders’ case

As senior counsel for Mr Violi accepted, “the resolution or determination of this case comes down to a pretty simple factual issue; namely, whether Mr Violi signed or, if he didn't sign, whether he on behalf of [FLV] knew and approved of the loans”. If that finding is made in the GEMI lenders’ favour, the alternative claims brought by the GEMI lenders and the Violi parties, which I discuss further below, do not arise.
As explained below, I have found that Mr Violi was aware of and authorised the execution of the GEMI loans (including variations) and security documents. That finding is based, in large part, on my assessment of Mr Violi’s credibility and my rejection of his evidence in relation to execution of the documents, where there is competing evidence from others and Mr Violi’s conduct, including written communication with others, is to the contrary. I accept that it is unlikely Mr Violi signed the documents personally, because the signatures do not bear any resemblance to his usual signature, as explained by handwriting experts and is apparent to the eye: Jeans v Cleary [2006] NSWSC 647 at [155]-[157] (Johnson J). It is more likely that Mr Lutui or Mr La Rocca signed or organised for someone to sign them on Mr Violi’s behalf. The result of these conclusions is that many forms of relief sought in Mr Violi and FLV’s second cross claim, including declarations that the GEMI loans and mortgages were fraudulently obtained, damages from Mr David and contribution or reimbursement from Mr Lutui and Suria Malaysia, is not available.
It appears that Mr Violi was generally prepared to provide financial assistance to Mr Glenn, Mr La Rocca and Suria Malaysia and believed assurances from Mr Glenn that Suria Malaysia and CDX would receive sufficient funding or profit to discharge the GEMI lenders’ loans, and that FLV’s properties would not be called on by them.
In reaching those conclusions, unless there is any corroborating documentary evidence, I placed no or very little weight on Mr David’s evidence generally. He demonstrated that despite his trusted position as a legal practitioner and officer of the Court, he has been prepared to make false statements in relation to documents, including his own trust records, and as to verification of identity. Those false statements were made in the context where Mr David was aware other legal practitioners and commercial lenders would place reliance upon them.

Shamoon loan

I am not persuaded that Mr Violi was aware of or authorised the Shamoon loan for the reasons outlined below, including the fact that Mr Violi did not appear to receive any benefit from that loan; all the money was advanced to Pacific Carbon at Mr David’s direction, based on Mr Glenn’s instruction. FLV’s alternative claims, brought if it was found liable under the Shamoon loan, therefore do not arise.
I consider that Mr David had a retainer with Mr Shamoon in relation to the transaction and was obliged to take reasonable care to document the loan terms, including the borrower’s promise of security, and to take reasonable care providing advice on the loan terms, including the security.
For such a significant short-term transaction a solicitor exercising reasonable care would have ensured there was binding documentation and caveats or that mortgages promised in the loan were registered. Belatedly Mr David represented to Mr Shamoon that he had registered Mr Shamoon’s interests, but that was false. It may be that Mr David hoped the money would be repaid quickly by Suria Malaysia or Pacific Carbon and without Mr Violi’s knowledge of the terms Mr David drafted, including security over FLV’s properties.
I also prefer the evidence of Mr Shamoon over that of Mr David in relation to discussions concerning Mr Shamoon’s advance of loan monies, which forms the basis of Mr Shamoon’s misleading or deceptive conduct claim.

Alternative claims?

The effect of the conclusions I have reached is that the alternative claims brought by the GEMI and Violi parties, premised on the contention that the GEMI loans were not validly executed or authorised by FLV and Mr Violi, do not arise. A summary of those claims is as follows:

The GEMI lenders claimed against the Violi parties in estoppel, for ratification of the loan documents, knowing receipt and knowing assistance under Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244, claimed against various parties for restitution of monies had and received, claimed against the David parties, Mr La Rocca, Pacific Carbon and Mr Lutui for knowing receipt, knowing assistance, misrepresentation, misleading or deceptive conduct, deceit, and conspiracy to injure. The GEMI lenders also sought to rely on the statutory assumptions available under Part 2B.2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in relation to the execution of the loan documents by FLV.

The Violi parties claimed for compensation from the Torrens Assurance Fund, pursuant to s 129(1) of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) (RPA) or for the mortgages to be cancelled by the Registrar-General for the GEMI lenders’ failure to comply with the requirements of s 56C(1). These claims do not arise. Counsel for the Registrar-General indicated that his client would have made a decision whether to act under s 56C(1) of the RPA and a declaration was not required. Further, had it been necessary, it would have raised the limitation to any recovery for FLV in s 129(2)(b) of the RPA.

Mr Violi and FLV also claimed that, in the event the GI 214 loan was enforceable, the interest charged under that loan was unconscionable under s 12CB(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) and s 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), being sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). However, it was accepted that the issue would only arise if the Court found that FLV did not agree to the GEMI loans, because the default interest rate on the GEMI loan is 52% compounding, which means the debt exceeds the value of the secured properties. My findings that Mr Violi, on behalf of FLV, consented to the GEMI loans have the result that this claim also does not arise.
In the Shamoon proceeding, Mr Violi and FLV brought alternative claims against Mr David and Pacific Carbon, in the event that the Shamoon loan is found to be enforceable against FLV. Those claims also do not arise.
I am mindful that, as a matter of general practice, trial judges are encouraged to determine all issues in order to assist the appeal process and obviate the need for a retrial: Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134 at [113] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ) (Prince Alfred College); Gulic v Boral Transport Ltd [2016] NSWCA 269 at [7] (Macfarlan JA, Gleeson JA and Garling J agreeing) (Gulic).
The most common, although not the only, application of that practice is in the assessment of damages for personal injury in cases where liability has not been established: Peter Sleiman Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] NSWCA 81 at [70] (Leeming JA, Beazley P agreeing); see also Nevin v B & R Enclosures Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 339 at [74] (Tobias JA, Beazley and Sheller JJA agreeing).
However, that practice is “a rule of convenience” and is “not something which should invariably be done without consideration of the appropriateness of that course of action in the circumstances of the case”: Prince Alfred College at [113]. That is because “the obligation of a court to give reasons is an obligation to explain the orders made, and that need not include resolving every issue presented by the parties”: PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2021] NSWCA 312 at [15] (Leeming JA, Basten JA and Simpson AJA agreeing).
It will not always be appropriate or practicable to make findings on all non-dispositive issues. That may be because the issue was not fully argued, or it may be because deciding the non-dispositive issue would require a judge to make assumptions as to a party’s credit which are “diametrically opposed to the judge’s findings”: Gulic at [8].
To make contingent findings in relation to the alternative claims here, I would be required to assume the veracity of Mr Violi’s evidence on the issue of the execution of the GEMI and GI 214 loans, contrary to my findings. I would also be required to assume facts contrary to the evidence of other witnesses, some of which I have accepted. Making findings in those circumstances would be a problematic exercise in hypotheticality. It would be particularly inappropriate in circumstances where the alternative claims are not necessarily simple, and the parties’ written and oral submissions focussed largely on the dispositive factual issue, and in that sense, the alternative claims were not fully argued. For those reasons, I do not consider it appropriate to make contingent findings in relation to alternative claims.
Below I outline what happened and the appropriate factual findings as they arise.

Mr Glenn, Suria Malaysia and “CDX”

At some time before 2017, Mr David had commenced acting as Mr Glenn’s lawyer, and also as Suria Malaysia’s lawyer.
Mr Glenn’s cousin introduced him to Mr La Rocca “more than 15, close to 20 years ago”. In about 2017, Mr Glenn sought Mr La Rocca’s assistance raising capital for CDX. That year, Mr Glenn introduced Mr David to Mr La Rocca.
Mr Glenn claimed that in about 2007 or 2008 he “conceived” of the idea of CDX. He claimed he was one of the first “in the industry” to realise that cryptocurrency is not backed by real assets, and he had a plan to develop a new cryptocurrency that was backed by timber in Fiji. He provided no substantive explanation as to how this system might work, what work had been done on building his “platform” since conception, how much money had been raised through investments or indeed spent on development. However, he indicated without elaboration that some investment money had been paid to him for his “expenses”.
He did not explain where the alleged development is up to or why the project has ostensibly ceased. He did not explain how Suria Malaysia was involved in CDX. There is nothing to demonstrate that Suria Malaysia invested any money. He did not consider he had any responsibility to ensure that any person who raised money from investors in Australia for CDX on his behalf, such as Mr La Rocca, complied with financial laws and regulations, because he was not “personally” raising the funds and he did not “see how that’s an issue for [him]”.
Mr Glenn said that his brother-in-law, Mr Lutui, was assisting him with CDX. Mr Lutui incorporated Pacific Carbon “to facilitate” Mr Glenn’s anticipated “licensing” of CDX. On 15 March 2019, the business name “CDX Australia” was registered to Pacific Carbon.
Mr Glenn’s evidence was that from late 2019 an unexplained “we” explored ways Suria Malaysia could raise funds in Australia. He claimed that Mr Yassin instructed him to establish a subsidiary of Suria Malaysia as an Australian company, of which Mr Lutui became the director. Mr Lutui and Mr Glenn were involved in a family café business in Canberra, but Mr Lutui moved to Sydney when Suria Australia was set up and he was appointed sole director.
To that end, Mr Glenn instructed Mr David to incorporate Suria Australia. His evidence in cross-examination was that Suria Australia did not conduct any business: “[i]t was just to receive investments into CDX… It was to receive investments from other people that raised the funds… it was the receiving account”. However, as explained below, Pacific Carbon and not Suria Australia, received large amounts of borrowed funds, including all of the money advanced under the Shamoon loan. Mr Glenn’s explanation for this was that Suria Australia “was unable to obtain a bank account … because it was wholly owned by a foreign corporation”, and Mr Shamoon’s money was directed by him to be paid to Pacific Carbon, so it could be used to pay a Barclays “bank fee”.
In August 2017, Mr David had written to Suria Malaysia confirming Mr Glenn’s instructions that he was in discussion with “possible investors … in relation to providing funds to finalise the establishment of a bank in Labuan, Malaysia” and that David Legal was to hold $5,000,000 in trust to “distribute … as instructed by you at [the] appropriate time”. In September 2017, Mr La Rocca sent Mr David an “investor pack” for Suria Malaysia, that sought a short-term investment of $5,000,000 for the establishment of an investment banking licence in Malaysia. The document indicated that Mr Glenn would manage the investment sum that would be held in Mr David’s trust account.
Mr Glenn claimed that he worked “with” Mr Omar Yassin bin Abdullah, the “chairman” of Suria Malaysia. Mr Yassin did not give evidence. His qualifications and business experience are not known. The extent and nature of Mr Yassin’s involvement in Suria Malaysia was not made clear, although there were some documents in evidence, which he had ostensibly signed.
However, Mr David stated he had given legal advice to Suria Malaysia for many years, obtaining instructions from Mr Glenn, and that he had also met Mr Yassin once in Malaysia. Mr David’s evidence in cross-examination was that, although he charged Suria Malaysia for the work he performed, he was never paid and was owed “probably hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more”. He did not explain why he was prepared to continue working for a client that did not pay.
What exact work Mr Glenn did “with” Suria Malaysia was not clear from any of his evidence. His explanation of his involvement with Suria Malaysia was confusing. He did not know where its office in Kuala Lumpur was located, despite having allegedly worked with the company since about 2012. He did not explain what business Suria Malaysia operated and spoke vaguely about “projects”. He asserted that some projects were related to land in Fiji. The most detail of the work he actually did was allegedly sitting in on a phone call with Mr Yassin and Barclays Bank at one point. Mr Glenn has no qualifications in finance, banking or any discipline relevant to cryptocurrency. He had no knowledge of any regulation of financial services in Australia, despite claiming that for over 25 years he has been self-employed in “finance and finance markets”, through various corporate vehicles, of which he has been the director.
Mr Glenn asserted that Suria Malaysia was simultaneously trying to obtain a banking licence in Malaysia, and also to transfer its own “sovereign funds” held in England to Malaysia. His explanation of “sovereign funds” was opaque. It was said to be money held by sovereigns, such as the British Royal Family, and was “backed” by “real assets”, such as gold. He did not explain which sovereigns had given Suria Malaysia their “sovereign funds”, why they would have done so, or on what terms. He attempted to explain, albeit obliquely, that the “sovereign funds” were allocated to Suria Malaysia’s “finance” business, as the “company was dealing with sovereign funds”. What exactly that means is unclear. He alleged that there had been delays with Barclays transferring the sovereign funds to the Central Bank in Malaysia, and that Suria Malaysia needed available funds to pay for necessary “bank fees”. He claimed that in early 2021, Barclays sought $3,500,000 in fees, but Mr Yassin negotiated that fee down to $2,000,000, to which Mr Shamoon’s borrowed money was put.
Mr Glenn had no documentation that actually supported anything he said. His evidence about Suria Malaysia’s attempts to obtain funds and the process through which that was to occur was implausible and inconsistent, as discussed further below. I place almost no weight on Mr Glenn’s evidence, except where it is corroborated by another witness or a document.
On a personal level, from before 2019, Mr Glenn was significantly in debt. On 25 June 2019, Mr Yassin had ostensibly written a letter on Suria Malaysia letterhead to support Mr Glenn in his defence of legal proceedings brought against him by the National Australia Bank Ltd and Credit Solutions Group Pty Ltd, a lender controlled by Mr Cacciola, a witness discussed further below. Mr David, acting as Mr Glenn’s lawyer, attached Mr Yassin’s letter to his 27 June 2019 letter to the lenders’ lawyers. In that letter, Mr Yassin claimed that Suria Malaysia was “about to invest” EUR8 billion “both in part in Australia and Fiji”. This was even though, on Mr Glenn’s evidence, Suria Malaysia could not access its sovereign funds at the time. There is nothing to demonstrate that Suria Malaysia ever possessed EUR8 billion, or if it did have such funds, why it or Suria Australia needed to borrow from the lenders in these proceedings. Mr David’s impression of Suria Malaysia was made evident in cross-examination:

Q. [Suria Malaysia’s letter] says, "We are in the process of investing approximately [EUR]8 billion". Was that your understanding?
A. I don't have official understanding of the financial position of Suria Global Malaysia.
Q. Did you accept this as true?
A. At the time that I did the verification of the Fiji valuation, which was some years later, compared to the valuation that I verified was about three or four years, at the earlier stages, it was valued at around 5 billion. So I assumed that a couple of years later that property would have been valued a little bit higher, not lower. So I did not verify outside of what the letter says.
Q. So you proceeded, did you, from 2019, that Suria Malaysia was a company of considerable economic and financial substance, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did your view of that company change at any stage?
A. I think sooner or later I started having my doubts. I don't know exactly when but it probably would have been when they just kept promising that today, tomorrow, they're going to pay out the loans. I think I got very frustrated, as did other lenders at the time.
Q. I'll come to the loans. Until the loans weren't repaid, you had no reason to doubt, did you, that Suria Malaysia was a very substantial company with considerable financial resources, is that correct?
A. I believe so, yes.

Mr Glenn also claimed that his “arrangement” for working with Suria Malaysia was that when it obtained funds, then he was entitled to be paid money to discharge his “investments” in Suria Malaysia, which he claimed was in the amount of $4,000,000. Neither his alleged investment nor his “arrangement” was documented. However, Mr Glenn asserted that when Suria Malaysia obtained loan funds the subject of these proceedings, Mr Yassin agreed that Mr Glenn could have his debts paid off, in the sum of over $3,500,000. Again, that “agreement” was not documented.
Mr Glenn could not recall when he was bankrupted, but it may have been around 2019. His bankruptcy was extended for two years because he failed to provide a list of assets. It is not clear when, or if, his bankruptcy was discharged and how that impacted on Mr Glenn carrying on business as a director of any of his companies. In July 2021, he was still a bankrupt to Mr David’s knowledge.
Generally, Mr Glenn’s evidence about Suria Malaysia, CDX, and the basis for, and payment of, the loans can only be described as incredible. It may be that he believed what he was saying, despite there being no objective evidence to substantiate that belief. Alternatively, it may be that he was involved in defrauding people out of money with stories of a nascent cryptocurrency, which after almost 20 years since alleged inception does not exist, and “sovereign funds” which have not been proved ever to have existed or belonged to Suria Malaysia.

Mr Violi’s relationship with Mr Glenn

In 2018, Mr La Rocca, at Mr Glenn’s instigation, encouraged Mr Violi to invest in CDX. Mr Violi had hopes that his investment at $2 per “share” or “token” would each be worth $45, or $100 or $1000 when CDX was launched and the company was listed. Where and when CDX was going to be listed or licensed was not explained.
In total, Mr Violi considered he owned 208,000 shares or tokens, even though he was never given any paperwork for his investment. Mr Glenn’s evidence was that he asked Mr La Rocca to keep records of investments he sourced for CDX “in case it was required”, but he had “not yet” asked for them and did not have any.
From 2019 into 2021, Mr Violi sent repeated text messages asking Mr Glenn for updates. Mr Violi’s understanding of the relationship between Suria Malaysia and CDX was not clear. He appeared to consider that it was necessary for Suria Malaysia to receive a large sum of money by way of “swift” or “bond” in order to launch CDX. This may have been the “sovereign funds” Mr Glenn referred to, but Mr Violi never referred to such funds.
In cross-examination, Mr Violi stated that he did not know what a “swift” was. It may be that Mr Violi had been told by Mr Glenn about Suria Malaysia’s activities in a vague way, and Mr Violi accepted what he was told at face value, never requesting any documentation or real proof, and never in fact meeting with Mr Glenn in person at any time. Mr Violi said in cross-examination that he understood that Mr David, Mr La Rocca and Mr Glenn were “selling a swift … or a bond” and were going to use the money to “float Carbon Dollar X”, purchase FLV’s Strathfield property and develop the Strathfield precinct.
In 2019, Mr La Rocca introduced Mr Violi to Mr David as CDX’s lawyer, in the context of Mr Violi seeking to purchase the Griffith shopping centre. At the time Mr David was also Suria Malaysia, Mr Glenn and Mr La Rocca’s lawyer. While Mr Violi had previously engaged solicitors in Griffith for legal work, he decided to engage Mr David in relation to the Griffith shopping centre purchase, because Mr David “was the one that got the deal … he found out that it … wasn’t sold and … had the opportunity with him”.
As explained further below, Mr La Rocca often acted as a go-between Mr David and Mr Violi in relation to communications concerning FLV’s properties.
As noted, Mr La Rocca was a friend of Mr Violi’s son, Anthony. While Mr Violi swore in his affidavit that he did not know Mr La Rocca much before 2021, that was obviously not the case. Faced with evidence including telephone records and text messages between them, Mr Violi had to accept that Mr La Rocca had assisted him with his business dealings from 2019. His denial of something so contrary to objective evidence did not instil confidence in his other evidence. I also do not accept Mr Violi’s evidence that when Mr La Rocca was “unemployed”, Mr La Rocca offered to assist without pay with administrative tasks at the Griffith shopping centre. Instead, I find that Mr Violi trusted Mr La Rocca with providing administrative assistance generally, including in relation to his investments with CDX, Suria Malaysia and Suria Australia. Mr La Rocca created a Gmail for Mr Violi, [email protected], and also set that Gmail up on Mr Violi’s mobile phone, which I find Mr Violi used, as discussed below.
In early 2019, Mr La Rocca told Mr Violi:

Alex Glenn is still in the process of getting CDX floated and is going to need funds to keep working to get to that point. What can be arranged now is, for you to transfer money to CDX overseas which is where Alex Glenn is, and then he can keep developing CDX and get it floated.

As will be seen, Mr Violi appears to have always transferred money as instructed by Mr Glenn and Mr La Rocca. Mr Violi agreed to provide more money to CDX in return for future shares or tokens. Mr Violi continued to transfer small amounts to assist Mr Glenn, including paying his hotel account in Malaysia, which he considered was further investment in CDX.
Around that time, Mr Violi was considering whether to obtain finance for the purchase of the Griffth shopping centre, and he asked Mr David to make arrangements for finance. Steps were taken to obtain a loan through a broker, Axiom Mortgage Solutions Pty Ltd. Mr David asked Mr La Rocca to obtain Mr Violi’s signature for the loan application, and Mr Violi provided copies of various identification documents. A loan with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was approved, and Mr La Rocca sent Mr David a mortgage in favour of the bank, which Mr Violi accepted he signed. However, Mr Violi changed his mind and did not proceed with the loan.
In mid-2019, the settlement of the purchase of the Griffith shopping centre was approaching. Emails between Mr Violi and Mr La Rocca attached Mr Violi’s identification documents, including his Medicare card and his Heavy Vehicle Driver Licence.
On 28 June 2019, settlement of the Griffith shopping centre occurred. Thereafter, Mr David and Mr Alex Smith at David Legal assisted Mr Violi with lease issues at the centre. Mr Smith worked in the property team at David Legal and was supervised by Mr David’s wife, Ms Sabrina Jajoo, who did not give evidence. However, sometimes Mr David supervised Mr Smith’s work, including in relation to Mr Violi’s matters. No explanation for Mr David acting outside his usual practice areas was given.

On 19 September 2019, Mr Violi signed a joint venture agreement with Alnamaa Capital Holdings Ltd (Alnamaa). Alnamaa was supposedly represented by Sir Yasin Saad Alakhdar Abu Salem, who did not give evidence. Mr Glenn explained that Alnamaa was an intermediary engaged to deal with Barclays to assist Suria Malaysia in receiving the sovereign funds. There was no documentation demonstrating the relationship between Alnamaa and Suria Malaysia, other than one Alnamaa invoice dated 10 October 2019 for EUR25,000.00 for “Bank confirmation charges & swift operations” and another dated 25 February 2020 for USD329,500.00 for “Banking Service and Consultations Fee”. There was no evidence about what these alleged services involved.
The purpose and substance of the Alnamaa joint venture is not apparent from the joint venture agreement, which includes:

1. Context
Full collaboration with respect to the following bullet points:
1. Medium & Long Term Note Trade
2. Trade Stations in Europe, United Kingdom, Gulf Countries and Asia
3. Cash Fund Investments
4. Capital Management and Hard Assets Investment
5. Swift Services
…

4.7 Opportunities
All partners must have a written opportunities policy that outlines the arrangements that are in place to ensure mutual benefits are derived (CASE BY CASE) and are treated fairly.

Mr Violi claimed he had no memory of signing the document, but accepted he may have done, as it appeared to bear his signature. This document was one of many in evidence in the proceedings which made little sense, or appeared designed to provide some basis for the later transfer from Australia of money borrowed on the security of FLV’s properties.
Mr Violi paid the October 2019 Alnamaa invoice. Around that time, Mr Violi said that Mr David told him that Mr Glenn needed $60,000 for his mortgage, which Mr Violi then paid. At the time, neither Mr Glenn nor Mr David told Mr Violi that Mr Glenn was facing legal action from his mortgagee and Mr Cacciola’s lending company, or that he was bankrupt. Mr Violi again considered he was making further investments in CDX by paying the Alnamaa invoice and Mr Glenn’s expenses.
On 14 November 2019, Mr Violi exchanged messages with Mr Glenn:

Violi:    Hi Alex, hows [sic] everything progressing! Regards Frank
Glenn:   will receive the email confirmation of the swift today by 12pm UK time
Violi:    Then what happens after that?
Glenn:   the process for funds being transferred to us here starts …it is the proof they need to make the wire to our account
Violi:    So shouldn’t have any hiccups after that?
Glenn:   yes

Mr Violi continued to ask Mr Glenn “when will the money hit?”
On 19 November 2019, Mr Violi sent a message to a “contractor”, Mr Haji Baryamai, providing the bank account details of Suria Malaysia. Mr Violi could not explain the purpose of that message, and claimed it must have been sent by Mr La Rocca using his phone. Mr Violi repeatedly blamed Mr La Rocca in a mantra-like manner whenever he was taken in cross-examination to a message or email that he could not explain in a way consistent with his case theory that he is a computer illiterate farmer who cannot understand matters of finance or commerce.
However, I do not accept that evidence. There can be no doubt that Mr Violi was aware of Suria Malaysia, because of Mr Glenn’s communications with him in the context of CDX. When Anton Pillar orders were carried out at his home in June 2022, Mr Violi was recorded by independent lawyers as denying he knew of Suria Malaysia. However, he said in cross-examination that if he had said that to those lawyers he must have misunderstood the question, because he was aware of the company. This speaks against Mr Violi’s credit and suggests he appears to have answered the question in a way he thought might most assist him at the time.
On 27 November 2019, Mr Glenn sent Mr Violi a screenshot of documentation suggesting Suria Malaysia was going to receive GBP250 million.
On 3 December 2019, Mr Glenn and Mr Violi exchanged messages:

Glenn: Frank I have sent the above documents [purportedly showing a "swift” message in relation to a bank transfer] through to you confidentially as I’m not supposed to send to anyone but I think it is important for you to see things are really happening
Violi: Ok thanks Alex cos I sweating on this happening as I had to help out Jason [La Rocca] some more today, I’m fully drained financially now so I hope it happens SOON!!

This is one indication by Mr Violi that in 2019 he was assisting Mr La Rocca financially, which is quite different to his denial of knowing Mr La Rocca well at the time. The full extent of Mr Violi’s financial assistance of Mr La Rocca was not in evidence, however, Mr La Rocca did obtain the benefit of large amounts of the GEMI loan funds.
On the same day, Mr Glenn also sent Mr Violi a copy of a letter ostensibly from IBH Investment Bank Ltd to Mr Yassin at Suria Malaysia, stating that “we have been actively promoting the [medium term note] and [have] contacted several potential buyers … they have expressed keen interest to purchase the paper when it is out in the market”. While medium term notes were referenced in the Alnamaa joint venture with FLV, it is unclear whether the reference in the letter to such a note was in any way connected.
On 5 December 2019, Mr Glenn sent Mr Violi a screenshot of what he later described during cross-examination as a “Bloomberg terminal” purportedly confirming the issuance by IBH Investment Bank to Suria Malaysia of a bond (medium term note) in the sum of USD150 million. In cross-examination, Mr Glenn at first appeared confused as to how the bond operated, but then accepted that the net effect of the bond was that Suria Malaysia was borrowing money. In relation to the screenshot, I note that there is nothing to indicate that it was in fact a bond which had any connection to Suria Malaysia, as only page 1 of 4 was in the photograph and Suria Malaysia was not named. I have doubts as to the veracity of the document, which, at best, demonstrated that Suria Malaysia had no money and needed to raise money for whatever “projects” it had. There was no evidence that Suria Malaysia received the bond money, or if it did, what it did with the money and why it required further funds later by way of the loans in this case. In evidence was a letter from UOB Kay Hian to Singaporean entity “Suria Global (S) Pte Ltd” dated 16 March 2021 offering “credit approvals … with a financing quantum of up to an aggregate of USD135,000,000 on a sole basis, subject to further legal due diligence and documentation”. From that document it appears that Suria Malaysia was to provide security for the loan facility in the form of a “standby letter of credit” issued by Barclays for “not less than” USD150,000,000. Why Suria Malaysia was apparently intending to offer security, and seeking to borrow money, was not explained, nor was the relationship between Suria Malaysia and the Singaporean entity with a similar name. In any event, there is no evidence as to whether Suria Malaysia received and took up a firm offer of finance.

Financial needs of Mr La Rocca, Mr Glenn and Mr David in 2019-2020

From 2018, Mr David was acting for Mr La Rocca in his criminal case. Senior and junior counsel were engaged. Criminal trials were held in February, November and December 2019. In December 2019, Mr La Rocca was convicted of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug (MDMA) secreted in candles imported from Singapore, and released on bail pending sentencing.
Before the first trial, on 24 January 2019, the clerk of Forbes Chambers had emailed Mr David about requirements for money in trust for Mr La Rocca’s barristers:

I refer to our telephone conversation … in which you stated that:
You currently have no substantial fees in trust although $100,000 would be deposited into your trust account today;
That the balance of funds would be available following a loan application which may take up to 4 weeks;
…
Both counsel have been more than patient in regards to the funds being in trust. You asked me to put this matter in their diary on 12 November 2018. Originally it was asked that funds were confirmed by 7^th December 2018. That was extended to 31 December 2018 and then to 18^th January 2019.
In these circumstances both counsel will return the brief and vacate these trial dates in their diary.

Less than an hour later, Mr David forwarded that email to Mr La Rocca.
On 25 January 2019, Mr David forwarded a copy of David Legal’s trust account to Mr La Rocca “as per your request”. This showed $5,000 in trust.
About 15 minutes later, Mr David forwarded to Mr La Rocca a trust account ledger held by David Legal for another client, together with an explanation that the entry in the ledger “TC” meant “trust cheque” and “TR” meant “trust receipt”. While Mr David attempted in cross-examination to suggest he would not intentionally send another client’s trust account ledger and claimed it was “privileged”, I do not accept his evidence. The email with the attachment and instructions was sent from his email address to Mr La Rocca and he must have intended to do so.
Less than 30 minutes later, Mr La Rocca forwarded to Mr David a doctored version of his trust account ledger, so that it was identical, other than it recorded a balance of $200,000, instead of $5,000. Mr David accepted in cross-examination that he knew he did not hold that money in his trust account.
Almost immediately, Mr David forwarded the doctored trust account ledger to the clerk of Forbes Chambers including in his email:

Further to my telephone conversation with you immediately prior to this email I confirm that I hold in Trust $200,000 for both senior and junior counsel for the work that they will undertake in this matter.
Please see attached copy of my Trust Ledger.

In cross-examination, Mr David made various statements including:

It’s not like me to do things like this.
I wouldn’t do things like that.
I’ve never done it.
I’ve never done this kind of stuff.
I won’t do it again.

I find that in 2019, Mr David knowingly sent a false “trust account ledger” to a barristers’ clerk to assure counsel that he had money in trust for Mr La Rocca’s upcoming criminal hearing, when he knew it was false. Mr David’s protestation in cross-examination that he is “extremely ethical” was manifestly incorrect in this context.
Mr David had also told the clerk of Forbes Chambers that Mr La Rocca was seeking a loan for his legal fees. It appears that Mr David was instrumental in a loan given by Mr Amir Awraham, who like Mr David (and Mr Shamoon) were members of the Assyrian community in Sydney. Mr David gave no evidence about this loan in his affidavits. However, the documentation revealed that:

Mr La Rocca sought funds for his legal fees.

In early March 2019, Mr Smith, under Mr David’s supervision, prepared a loan agreement for Mr Awraham to loan to Mr La Rocca’s mother $200,000 “for the purpose of improving and developing” her “architectural business practice”.

The loan was repayable on 2 July 2019. It is not clear how the La Rocca family intended to repay the loan.

The loan documents were enclosed in a letter addressed to Mrs Carmel La Rocca dated 5 March 2019, which indicated that David Legal acted on behalf of Mr Awraham. That letter advised Mrs La Rocca to have her signature on the documentation witnessed “preferably by a solicitor who may advise you in relation to the Loan Agreement”. The letter continued: “you … have the right and are entitled to seek the legal advice that you require to ensure that you are not prejudiced by this loan facility”.

All the documentation was sent to Mr La Rocca and not his mother, without explanation. Mr David’s evidence was that this was because Mr La Rocca was the “contact point”. There was no evidence that Mrs La Rocca had consented to Mr La Rocca being her agent.

Mr La Rocca sent documents apparently signed by his mother to Mr David.

Mrs La Rocca did not give evidence.
After Mr La Rocca’s second trial, in which he was found guilty by the jury, on 3 January 2020, Mr David sent Mr La Rocca an invoice totalling $457,982.60.
Around this time Mr Violi was exchanging text messages with Mr Glenn, including:

Violi:    Any news Alex?
Glenn:   yes we should be receiving the first transfer by Monday earliest would be tomorrow but I think Monday is a safer bet.
…
Violi:    Anything happen yesterday Alex?
Glenn:   on Thursday Frank
Violi:    Money arrive in Asia today Alex?
Glenn:   I will know later
…
Violi:    Any news Alex?
Violi:   Just waiting to see when it docks, it should be in Malaysia by tonight, then it needs to be unloaded and put on another boat to transport it to aust!!! Fingers crossed that the ship doesn’t sink with all the money!!!
…
That was meant for one of the investors that keep asking me about it Alex, not meant for u, sorry!
…
Glenn:   they have told me here that transfers from Hong Kong before the new financial rules like Australia came in late last year, it normally took 3 days because of the currency controls.

On 9 January 2020, Mr David sent Mr La Rocca an email including:

Please see email from [barrister following up payment].
Please put me in funds urgently to pay your barristers and that guy that you borrowed from February last year.

Mr David’s evidence was that “that guy you borrowed from” was Mr Awraham.
As will be seen below, money borrowed from the GEMI lenders was used to fund Mr La Rocca’s criminal case, including to pay Mr David’s fees and to repay Mr Awraham.

Alleged sale of Strathfield

Mr Violi’s evidence was that if he needed emails, he would have them sent to an email account associated with the Kidman Wayside Inn (the Kidman email), in which he had an interest. Emails sent to that address would be printed for Mr Violi to go and read or have read to him. However, in his evidence he often stated that he had not received or ever seen emails sent to that address. I do not accept that evidence. It would seem unlikely that administrative staff at the hotel would make decisions about which emails were important or not for Mr Violi.
At times, Mr Violi told Mr Glenn to send him emails to the Kidman email, and also his personal Gmail address. Repeatedly, Mr Violi suggested he could not read emails sent to that Gmail account on his phone and that Mr La Rocca had access to that email and caused emails to be sent to and from it. However, Mr Violi’s evidence changed when it was demonstrated to him that the email was being used for over a year, while Mr La Rocca was incarcerated. He finally accepted that his usual practice was to ask either his son or an assistant, who worked at the Griffth shopping centre to read emails to him. There is no doubt that important emails were sent to that Gmail address. For example, his accountant, Mr Jess, caused emails to be sent to Mr Violi at that address. Further, the evidence of Ms Panazzolo, the manager of the Griffith shopping centre, which I accept, was that Mr Violi was able to read emails on his phone and she saw him do so and that he only struggled using the computer in the office. I find that Mr Violi was aware of emails that were sent to and from both those email addresses.
On 30 January 2020, a real estate agent sent an email to the Kidman email, and the email was then forwarded to Mr Violi’s personal Gmail. The real estate agent gave his explanation for why it was not possible to sell the Strathfield property for $50 million. Mr Violi was convinced the property was valuable because of its rezoning and development possibilities.
In early 2020, Mr La Rocca allegedly told Mr Violi that a company operated by Mr Glenn would buy the Strathfield property for $50 million, and Mr David could act for FLV on the sale. Despite his denial, I find that Mr David told the managing agent of Strathfield, Mr Robert Pignataro, about that sale. I accept Mr Pignataro’s evidence. He was disappointed because he wanted to act as agent on any sale of Strathfield, and had an expectation from working for Mr Violi for years that he would be offered the opportunity to market and sell the property.
There was no document in evidence that demonstrated any offer to purchase the property as Mr Violi alleged. He did not know the name of the purchaser or the likely timing of the purchase. However, in his July 2025 affidavit, Mr Violi stated the sale was to Suria Malaysia. Mr Violi asserted that most of his communications about the property and his receipt of money thereafter related to the proposed sale. Based on the chronology of events, messages from Mr Glenn in November 2021 (discussed below) confirming that he was buying Strathfield “at a premium” and “above market” and Mr Pignataro’s evidence, I accept that Mr Glenn had agreed with Mr Violi to purchase Strathfield for $50 million and develop the site.
On 4 February 2020, Mr David’s assistant, Ms Fanola Pantelis, sent an email to Mr Violi’s Gmail account, copied to Mr La Rocca and Mr Smith, attaching a “mandate agreement” between FLV and AL Global Investments Pty Ltd, which was authorised to undertake negotiations for the sale of the Strathfield property. Mr Violi denied ever having seen the agreement. A version purportedly signed by Mr Violi was in evidence, but it did not bear his usual signature. While there would have been no need for an agency agreement if Strathfield had already been sold, I consider that various documentation in this case was prepared that provided some flexibility in terms of the approach that was finally taken by those involved.
In February 2020, Mr La Rocca was in need of significant sums of money to fund the defence of his criminal case as noted above. On 7 February 2020, Mr Edward Kanaan, a solicitor at David Legal, sent Mr La Rocca an email including:

I note that you have been in discussion with both Fred and Alex from our office in relation to possibly obtaining funds by securing your parents’ water licence as a security for the said loan.
We are not certain as to the amount that you are seeking to obtain, but please note that you currently owe, the following:
1. [senior counsel] … $165,000
1. [junior counsel] … $66,000…
1. Mr Amir Awraham the sum of $320,000.00 for the loan facility that was obtained for you to pay your previous Counsels for the Trial of February last year.
I was also instructed by Fred to prepare the Tax Invoices for the work undertaken in this matter in particular the Trials in February, November and December last year.
…
In respect of [senior counsel] we have commenced preparing the brief late last year, but we had to stop doing work on that matter (appealing the decision of the Jury) as we are not in funds, …
Fred appreciates your financial position and also appreciate that you are endeavouring to obtain the necessary funds to help your case, including the sentencing and appeal, but without funds in our Trust Account, we are limited, noting the time you are also being substantially prejudiced by such financial position. …

On 11 February 2020, one of Mr La Rocca’s barristers emailed Mr David chasing payment:

…I find it downright discourteous for you in the circumstances not to have made time to contact me.
You will recall that prior to the commencement of Jason’s trial on 25 November 2019, I spoke to you and asked if my fees were in trust for the trial. You assured me that the fees were in trust and we … are ready to go. I accepted that assurance of course.
On Friday 13 December 2019 (the day the trial finished) I again spoke to you and asked if you would be good enough to pay my invoice if I sent it to you, …No cheques was dropped off and no contact has been made either in the form of payment or explanation …
I do not want to take this matter to the next level, but I find you failure to respond to professional calls unforgiveable.
I require you to satisfy my invoice by Friday of this week or give a firm indication as to when this will happen, or I regret I will have no choice but consider next steps. … [emphasis in original]

A few hours later, Mr David forwarded that email to Mr La Rocca asking him to “deal with this matter”. There is no doubt that around this time, Mr La Rocca was in need of funds, and Mr David had not been paid.

Deed of guarantee and indemnity

On 13 February 2020, Mr Kaanan at David Legal emailed to Mr La Rocca, “from Fred” and copying in Mr David, an unsigned “Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity”, whereby Suria Australia made promises to FLV. The deed provided that Suria Malaysia would seek to borrow $15 million and FLV would guarantee the loan and offer the Strathfield property as security, and FLV would receive $5 million of the borrowed funds.
Recitals F and G provided:

[Suria Malaysia] will also as part of the Loan facility insure the Loan amount and the interest thereto through a Top Tier Insurance Company. Such insurance shall be by way of a Surety Bond for the Loan amount. The Borrower will also insure the interest of the Loan amount by taking out an additional insurance which is “Rap Insurance” on the loan amount should the Borrower fail to pay the Loan amount and/or interest to the Lender.
[Suria Malaysia] must include on both of the insurance policies … the interest of the Lender and [FLV as Guarantor] to ensure full protection of [FLV] so that the [Strathfield property given as security] is not in any way prejudiced by [Suria Malaysia’s] failure to pay the Loan amount and the interest thereto to the Lender.

On the same day, Mr La Rocca sent to himself a version of that Deed apparently signed by Mr Violi. However, the signature is not Mr Violi’s usual signature. Mr La Rocca sent a WhatsApp message to Mr Violi’s accountant, Mr Peter Jess, at 2:58pm, attaching the Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity. Mr Violi’s phone records on that date record phone calls with Mr La Rocca at 2:55pm and around 3:02pm. Mr Violi denied having seen or received that document. When pressed as to his knowledge of the Deed, and his phone calls with Mr La Rocca, Mr Violi reverted to his position that “Jason La Rocca had access to [his] phone almost every day” and that “stuff that’s missing on it … messages missing”. I do not accept Mr Violi’s evidence, particularly because Mr La Rocca called Mr Jess that day at 2:59pm from his own telephone and spoke for about 3 minutes, even though Mr Jess claimed he did not recall it. That timing fits with Mr Violi and Mr La Rocca’s calls.
Mr Jess’ evidence was that he never received Mr La Rocca’s WhatsApp. However, the delivery status of that message on Mr La Rocca’s phone indicates it was received and read by a user of Mr Jess’ WhatsApp. Mr Jess stated he had searched his phone and not found the message, and quite vehemently denied that he had received the Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity or discussed that document with Mr La Rocca. The GEMI lenders suggested that Mr Jess’ evidence ought not be believed, because he had given unsatisfactory evidence in relation to production of documents pursuant to a subpoena issued to his firm. His response had been that he, personally, did not have any documents to produce, apparently drawing a distinction between himself and his firm. I do not consider his evidence in that regard tainted all his evidence. In any event, it is Mr Violi’s evidence that is critical, not Mr Jess’.
Mr David received a signed copy of that Deed that day, but the evidence does not disclose how. It may be that Mr La Rocca emailed it in reply to Mr Kanaan, or to Mr David himself.
Mr David’s evidence was that around this time he had spoken to Mr Glenn, who informed him that Suria Malaysia and Mr Violi wanted to borrow money and asked him to speak with brokers. Mr David did not state that he sought instructions from Mr Violi, and I do not consider that he did.
Thereafter it appears that steps were taken to obtain a loan for Suria Malaysia with FLV’s Strathfield property as security as set out in the Deed.
On 14 February 2020, Mr David’s evidence was he spoke with a mortgage broker, Mr John Radicchi, seeking a loan for $15 million to Suria Malaysia, secured by a mortgage over FLV’s Strathfield property. Mr David had represented to Mr Radicchi that the “funds will be used for the purpose of business use to pay out creditors and invest thereafter the balance of the funds. The exist strategy is to refinance the debt for a cheaper rate for a long term as settlement needs to be effected within 5 days in order to meet some of the demands.” Mr David did not explain what creditors Suria Malaysia wanted to pay out, and why there were immediate “demands”. This is particularly odd in circumstances where Suria Malaysia had months earlier represented it had EUR8 billion and also allegedly had the benefit of the $150 million bond, and Mr David considered Suria Malaysia was wealthy.
A short-term lender, Curo Capital Pty Ltd, made an indicative offer of loan on the terms requested by Mr David. Mr David then sent the offer to Mr La Rocca for Mr Violi to consider and to Mr Glenn for Mr Yassin to sign. It is not clear why Mr David did not send the emails directly to Mr Violi or Mr Yassin. Mr David did not make any file note of giving any advice to Mr Violi, nor of having any conversation with him about the loan. Instead, it appears that Mr David considered discussing matters with Mr Glenn was sufficient.
About 30 minutes after receipt, Mr La Rocca sent Mr David an email entitled “Suria Loan” with a copy of the Curo Capital letter of offer purportedly with Mr Violi’s signature, which did not accord with his usual signature. Mr David requested Mr La Rocca provide another version with a witnessed signature.
Mr La Rocca appears to have sent back the same version with Mr Violi’s signatures, but now also with a witness’ signature, being Robert Johnson, who did not give evidence. I note that the signatures of both Mr Violi and Mr Johnson do not appear consistent in the two signature blocks, one above the other. Mr Violi said he knew a Robert Johnson who had previously worked on his farm, but not for years, and he denied signing the document. Mr Johnson was not called to give evidence.
Two minutes later at 4.11pm, Mr David forwarded to Mr Radicchi the signed Curo Capital offer.
On the same day, 14 February 2020, Mr Smith emailed to Mr La Rocca a St George mortgage discharge form “to be signed by Frank on Page 3”, that previous loan having been fully repaid. On 16 February 2020, Mr La Rocca emailed Mr Smith with the form signed by Mr Violi with his authentic signature.
On 16 February 2020, Mr La Rocca emailed himself copies of Mr Violi’s identification documents, including one document described as “frank 2019 ID.pdf”. The copy of Mr Violi’s driver’s licence had an expiry date of 1 November 2019. In 2019, Mr La Rocca had helped Mr Violi obtain a new passport, which required an application for a birth certificate. Despite that, Mr Violi’s evidence was that he did not know how Mr La Rocca obtained his identification documents. I find that Mr Violi provided them to Mr La Rocca or authorised him to obtain them.
On 16 and 17 February 2020, Ms Susie Apolloni, FLV’s bookkeeper sent to Mr Violi’s Gmail copies of Strathfield rates and land tax. An email from Mr Violi’s Gmail forwarded that email to Mr La Rocca. Mr Violi denied sending that email to Mr La Rocca. His evidence was that Mr La Rocca sent it and that Mr La Rocca was “always” taking his phone claiming that his own phone battery was flat. I do not accept that evidence. I consider Mr Violi sent Mr La Rocca the email or authorised Mr La Rocca to do so.
On 17 February 2020, Mr David was organising a valuation of Strathfield. He asked Mr La Rocca to ask Mr Violi to provide answers to questions from the valuer.
On 18 February 2020, Mr David took a file note of a 45 minute conversation with Mr Glenn, in which Mr Glenn asked Mr David to call Mr David Cacciola of Integrated Securities, who was owed about $1,500,000 by Mr Glenn, to seek a loan for Suria Malaysia with FLV as guarantor, and to tell Mr Cacciola that:

Suria & Frank have a JV. If Frank helps by funding Suria’s banking licence, Suria has agreed to invest with Frank in a number of projects with him including redeveloping that whole corner in Strathfield without him being out of pocket.

Mr David’s explanation for taking a file note on this occasion was “I had come to feel under a degree of pressure to get finance arranged. I was concerned that I may be criticised for not acting sufficiently fast on my instructions, so I decided to document those instructions in a file note.” Mr David did not explain why he felt pressure, or why in those circumstances he did not seek instructions from Mr Violi directly. It was suggested by Mr Violi that Mr David was under personal financial pressure because he had not been paid by Mr La Rocca or Mr Glenn for legal work invoiced at millions, as detailed further below and in the context of Mr David’s credit.
I consider Mr David was in significant financial stress at the time, despite his denial. Mr David’s insistence that he personally would pay Mr La Rocca’s counsel’s outstanding fees is difficult to reconcile with the fact he did not do so. Conversely, Mr David accepted that he felt under some pressure from Mrs La Rocca to ensure that Mr Awraham did not call on the debt, and he told Mr La Rocca on 9 January 2020 that he was under unbearable “financial pressure”. Mr David nevertheless suggested that his firm “could survive” a steadily increasing overdraft.
On the same day, Mr La Rocca sent himself a “list of monies to be paid”, which included:

Frank $2,500,000
NAB - $1,000,000
David C - $1,500,000
Jason Debts - $800,000
Fred Debts - $3,250,000
Alnamaa - $250,000 Pounds…
Jason Legals - $1,500,000
George Legals - $100,000
Alan – All remaining funds after all the above transfers in AUD.

It is possible to make sense of part of the list from other evidence around that time. Mr Glenn stated that he had an arrangement with Suria Malaysia that he was allowed to use money that it obtained to pay his debts and liabilities at the time, and that Mr La Rocca could do also.
Mr Glenn owed the following amounts:

$1,500,000 seemingly to Mr David Cacciola, referred to as David C.

$1,000,000 to NAB on his home mortgage.

Several hundreds of thousands of dollars to Mr David for legal fees.

Mr La Rocca at least needed money to fund his legal fees already incurred, to pay off his mother’s debt and to raise money for his upcoming sentencing hearing and appeal.
As noted above, Alnamaa had previously sent Suria an invoice for EUR25,000. It may be that further money was “owed” to it.
It is unclear what the other amounts are, including “Fred Debts”, unless that included some of the legal fees owed to Mr David by Mr Glenn and his family.
On 19 February 2020, Mr David had a conversation with Mr Cacciola in which he asked questions as to who the parties were, including:

Cacciola: Who is behind Suria [Australia]?
David: Alan Lutui …
Cacciola: Who is Alan?
David: I don’t know really … What’s the best you can do
Cacciola: 60% [LVR]
David: I need to get instructions from both Suria & Frank

Mr David’s further file notes suggest he spoke with Mr Glenn and Mr Violi and both indicated that if the other was comfortable with the terms then they would also agree.
On the same day, Mr Smith emailed Mr Radicchi about an Ausgrid caveat on the Strathfield title.
On the same day at 10.22pm, Mr David sent Mr La Rocca a copy of Suria Australia’s certificate of registration of a company. At 11.16pm, Mr David sent Integrated Securities a populated “Credit Submission”. Mr David had called Mr La Rocca and indicated that Mr Cacciola wanted the completed application “ASAP”.
On 20 February 2020, Mr Glenn stated that a Joint Venture Deed had been signed by Mr Violi and Mr Lutui on behalf of Suria Australia, and a document bearing that date was in evidence. It provided that the joint venture “project” was to “maximise the profits … by purchasing the adjoining properties [to FLV’s Strathfield property] with the financial assistance” of Suria Malaysia.
Further, recitals E and F provided:

In consideration of [Suria Malaysia] investing in the Joint Venture, [Suria Malaysia] shall at the appropriate time and on the instructions of [FLV] monetise a Bank Guarantee in the sum of …USD$100 million .. that will be issued by Barclays Bank UK PLC for and behalf of [Suria Malaysia] in favour of United Overseas Bank … in Singapore.
[Suria Malaysia] shall immediately upon monetisation of the said funds provide to [Suria Australia] by way of capital injection the sum of …AUD$100 million to invest in the said sum into the Project.

The document does not bear Mr Violi’s usual signature, and he said the signature was “fake”. However, the content of that document provides substance to Mr Violi’s understanding that Strathfield was being sold to Suria Malaysia and it was going to be developed with properties in the vicinity. That is also consistent with Mr Glenn’s assertions that Strathfield was purchased at a premium and Strathfield would be developed “at no cost” to Mr Violi.
Oddly, it was only on 4 October 2021 that Mr David sent Mr Glenn a “draft” of a joint venture agreement for his consideration “before [he] had Alan sign the same tomorrow”. This is one of many documents that appears to have been created by or between Mr David, Mr Glenn and Mr Lutui, and not at around the date it purports to bear. Mr David has no file note of giving any advice to Mr Violi about this agreement at any time.
On 20 February 2020, Mr Smith sought from Mr La Rocca Mr Violi’s signature on the Integrated Securities loan application form. Mr La Rocca returned it with a signature unlike Mr Violi’s usual signature. Mr Smith then forwarded the document to Mr Cacciola.
On the same day, Mr David made a file note about an alleged telephone call with Mr Glenn and Mr Violi. Mr David asked whether there was a valuation for Strathfield. Mr Violi indicated that JLL had valued it at about $20 million about 4 years earlier. Mr Violi is recorded to have said that he would ask Mr La Rocca to send a copy of the valuation to Mr David the next day. The next day, on 21 February 2020, Mr La Rocca sent Mr David and Mr Smith a copy of a 2015 JLL valuation of Strathfield, which I find Mr Violi gave him.
On 22 February 2020, Mr La Rocca received an email from REX attaching tickets for a flight from Griffith to Sydney for 25 February for Mr Violi and Mr La Rocca.
On 23 February 2020, Mr David received a formal offer from Integrated Securities for a loan of $17,580,000 in favour of Suria Malaysia, with FLV, Mr Lutui and Mr Violi as guarantors and with security being given over Strathfield. That was sent to Mr La Rocca and also Mr Glenn with the instruction to “coordinate with Jason and frank in signing the agreement”. Mr La Rocca returned it to Mr David with a signature that is not Mr Violi’s usual signature.
On 24 February 2020, Mr David requested an appraisal of Strathfield from Mr Pignataro for Mr Cacciola of Integrated Securities.
On the same day, Ms Apolloni sent to Mr Violi’s Gmail Strathfield rates notices, which were then forwarded from that Gmail to Mr La Rocca.
On the same day, Mr La Rocca’s barrister’s solicitors sent a letter of demand to Mr David, requiring payment of fees, including:

You informed our client unconditionally, prior to our client agreeing to undertake the required preparation and appear at the trial, that you held funds in trust for the purpose of paying counsel’s fees.

On 25 February 2020, Mr Pignataro gave an appraisal of Strathfield of $35 million and sent it to Mr Violi at both the Kidman email and Mr Violi’s Gmail account. Mr Pignataro denied that he ought to have taken into account the alleged exchanged contract for Strathfield in preparing that appraisal. He was not relevantly challenged on that evidence, and did not detract from his evidence that Mr David told him he had sold the Strathfield property. The appraisal was sent from Mr Violi’s Gmail to Mr La Rocca. Mr Violi denied doing that, but I find he was aware of it.
On 25 February 2020, Ms Bilson from Mr Jess’ office sent Curo Capital’s caveats to an email used by Ms Apolloni, FLV’s bookkeeper.
That day, Mr La Rocca and Mr Violi flew from Griffith to Sydney, landing at 3.55pm. Mr Violi said he stayed with his relative Tony Violi in Camden. Mr Tony Violi did not give evidence corroborating that evidence or where Mr Violi was when he was in Sydney.
As noted above on the same day, Alnamaa sent another invoice to Suria Malaysia (although addressed to FLV) in the sum of USD329,500, seeking payment into a Hong Kong bank account in the name of Yasin Saad Alakhdar Abu Salem.
Mr David said that Mr La Rocca and Mr Violi attended his offices for a conference about Mr La Rocca’s criminal case. Mr Violi accepted that he may have attended Mr David’s offices, but not for a conference, but also it was more likely 26 February 2020, because he was going to lunch with his relatives and Mr La Rocca.
On 26 February 2020, Mr Lutui sent Mr David an email outlining where Mr Cacciola’s loan funds ought to be paid, including:

Alnamaa $495,000
D & MC La Rocca $250,000
Jason La Rocca $200,000
FP & LW Violi $2,500,000
David Legal Trust $2,000,000
…
David Cacciola $1,500,000
NAB Home Loan $1,000,000
…

On 27 February 2020, Mr Violi accepted that he had a conversation with Mr David about removing an Ausgrid caveat off Strathfield’s title. However, he denied that the purpose of removal was for the lender to register caveats, but instead it was about the alleged purchaser of Strathfield registering an interest. I do not accept Mr Violi’s evidence. Mr David sent an email to Mr Cacciola indicating he had spoken to Mr Violi about removing the caveat to avoid delay. Mr David also sent an email seeking “urgent attention” in advancing the sums outlined in Mr Lutui’s email.

Meeting at David Legal offices 28 February 2020

A critical meeting took place in the evening of 28 February 2020 at the offices of David Legal. Mr Violi’s evidence was that he did not attend that meeting and did not sign loan agreement documents, whereas the GEMI lenders contended that he did sign or was at least present or authorised the signatures. Mr Violi challenged the evidence of persons who said they saw him at the office and signing the documentation, on the basis that they were mistaken and they could not in fact remember seeing Mr Violi there at the particular meeting. He relied upon his telephone records with a view to demonstrating his phone was used that evening in places away from David Legal’s offices, and to support the truthfulness of his evidence that he was not present. He also demonstrated that Mr David did not in fact sight his original identification documents at the meeting, despite him certifying that he had done so, in order to discredit Mr David’s evidence of witnessing his signatures.
On that day, Mr David was referred to GEMI for a potential loan. Mr David met Mr Epstein at GEMI’s offices in Martin Place. Mr Epstein’s evidence was that Mr David had a conversation to the effect with himself and Mr Fleming:

David: I’m a solicitor. My client needs a loan for $20 million. We have been dealing with numerous brokers and lenders for the past three weeks and they have been stuffing us around. Because the other proposed lenders have dragged things out, my clients are no longer focussed on interest rates and they just need to move quickly.
Fleming (founder and a director of GEMI): We can’t get you $20m today. If the security stacks up we can get you $5m on Monday and the balance within a week.

Mr David did not explain the urgency in his evidence.
That afternoon, Mr Violi called his son from Oran Park in Sydney, which is where he was allegedly staying with relatives while in Sydney.
At about 5pm, Mr La Rocca, Mr Violi and Mr Lutui arrived at Mr David’s offices allegedly to execute the loan documents organised by Mr Cacciola’s Integrated Securities, “Bridge Street Capital” and “Saddleback”.

On 10 May 2022, Mr David sent Mr Shamoon a screen shot of a Barclays bank account, and stated:

The funds have left London as seen here. The funds are unfortunately pending in HK by the authorities. I’m assured that they will be released soon. Please be patient. I’ll insure [sic] that these people compensate you for all of your losses and more.

The fact that Mr David included his assurance in this message that “these people” will “compensate you for all your losses and more” is consistent with Mr Shamoon’s version of the conversations the men had before Mr Shamoon agreed to the loan on the terms proposed by Mr David; he had Mr David’s assurance of the security for the loan.
I also accept that Mr David told Mr Shamoon:

Frank is going guarantor for Alex, who is in Malaysia, for $49.5 million that he’s bringing from the UK. The guy has to put $2 million into an account before the money can come to Australia, as that will show he has money to pay the associated fees. From that $49.5 million you will be paid the $4 million plus damages for late repayment of your loan.

In June 2022, receivers were appointed in relation to the Strathfield property. Anton Piller orders were executed over Mr Violi’s home.
In July 2022, Mr Shamoon sought a meeting with Mr David. He never received a timely answer to that request.
On 10 August 2022, Mr David sent Mr Shamoon a message:

I received a very late call last night informing me that they are still working on the issue and should be in a position to update me later in the week.

On 15 August 2022, Mr Shamoon collected the loan agreement and mortgage documents, which bear a signature not like Mr Violi’s usual signature. Mr Shamoon asked Mr David why there were no dates “on the papers”.
However, on 16 August 2022, Mr David met Mr Shamoon at his car wash and witnessed him sign the loan agreement. Mr David told Mr Shamoon he would “see what he could do” about registering caveats.
In August 2022, Mr David and Mr Shamoon had a “without prejudice mediation” with the Assyrian Church’s archbishop.
On 18 August 2022, Mr Shamoon sent Mr David a message asking whether the “documents” had been “registered”. Mr David did not respond.
In September 2022, voluntary administrators were appointed to Suria Australia. As noted above, at some time in 2022, Mr Yassin decided to “pull [Suria Malaysia’s] money” back from Hong Kong. In cross-examination, Mr Glenn gave further unsubstantiated and incredible evidence that the money was “retracted from Hong Kong [after] many promises from the monetary authority” that it would be released, as Suria Malaysia had the “right to send the cancellation of that transfer”. That was apparently so, notwithstanding Mr Glenn’s unsubstantiated assertion in the witness box that, cancellation aside, the funds are “sitting in Malaysia” and that that was a “huge victory because it means the next stage is funds get released” and they would be released in the next 30 days.
After a further request from Mr Shamoon, on 21 October 2022, Mr David told Mr Shamoon that the “document” had been sent for registration. That was false. Neither Mr David nor his firm lodged any caveats. I consider it likely that Mr David did not want Mr Violi to become aware of the Shamoon loan, because he expected it to be repaid quickly before Mr Violi ever became aware of it.
The front of the caveat identified Mr David as the lodger with the reference “FD/SHAMOON”. Mr David did not explain why he included such details if FLV was his client, and not Mr Shamoon. This is certainly consistent with Mr David considering that it was Mr Shamoon, not Mr Violi, who was actually his client.
On 6 November 2022, Mr David sent Mr Shamoon a message:

Please be patient I’m going to settle your matter very soon, to your full satisfaction. You are not being prejudice [sic] at all. … I will contact you soon to obtain account details.

On 16 December 2022, Mr Shamoon’s lawyers sent Mr Violi a letter of demand.
On 7 March 2023, Mr David told Mr Shamoon that if he did not take further legal action then he would receive $100,000 per month every month “for the next couple of months, and thereafter the remaining money owed to you will be paid”. On 8 March 2023, $100,000 was deposited into Statewide’s bank account from the account of Mr La Rocca. Mr Shamoon did not know who Mr La Rocca was. Mr David did not explain how Mr La Rocca came to pay that money. Mr Shamoon did not receive any other money.
In June 2024, the receivers sold the Strathfield property, with net proceeds of about $10 million being held pending the outcome of this litigation.

Concerns about Mr David’s conduct

As outlined in this judgment, I have serious concerns about Mr David’s conduct in relation to the following:

He knowingly sent a false version of his trust account ledger to barristers to encourage them to retain a brief, by making a false representation that he had money in trust.

He knowingly sent another client’s trust account ledger containing confidential information to Mr La Rocca.

He knowingly made false representations when certifying that he had taken photographs for the purposes of identifying Mr Violi.

He knowingly made false representations that he had seen original identification documents, when he had not.

He knowingly signed a statutory declaration as a “witness” to Mr Violi’s signature, when the document had not been signed by anyone.

Shamoon case

As I have found that Mr Violi did not know of or sign the Shamoon loan agreement, Mr Shamoon’s primary case based on enforcing the agreement against FLV fails. Therefore, it is necessary to determine Mr Shamoon’s alternative case against Pacific Carbon and Mr and Ms David.

Pacific Carbon

I accept that Mr Shamoon is entitled to judgment against Pacific Carbon, for money had and received in the amount of $1,900,000, which was paid under Mr Shamoon’s mistaken belief that the money was the subject of a loan agreement secured by FLV’s properties: see Australian Financial Services Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560 at 568 (French CJ).
Pacific Carbon, and its director, Mr Lutui have not appeared and defended the matter. All defendants had been served and had filed commercial list responses. While Mr La Rocca, Suria Australia, Mr Lutui and Pacific Carbon did not appear at the hearing, I considered there was no unfairness in proceeding with the hearing against them in their absence: see eg Elite Realty Development Pty Ltd v Sadek [2022] NSWSC 1333 at [8]-[26]; Satz v ACN 069 808 957 Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 365 at [68] (Barrett J). I note Mr Lutui was required for public examination by the liquidators of Suria Global, and after an attempt to delay the examination failed, and a warrant for his arrest was issued, Mr Lutui left Australia for the United States of America: David v Livingstone (Liquidator); Re Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) (in liq) [2023] FCA 1663 at [7], [18] (Perram J).

David Legal

Mr Shamoon claimed damages from Mr David and Ms David for:

Breach of an express or inferred/implied retainer or for negligence in:

failing to verify FLV was the entity seeking the money;

failing to verify the identity of the borrower;

failing to verify the borrower had agreed to the loan;

providing payment instructions which were not payment instructions from the borrower;

failing to secure the advanced money with security that could answer the repayment obligation.

Misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the “Australian Consumer Law” by:

representing to Mr Shamoon before he advanced the money that the loan was “guaranteed” because the advance would be the only security over the Griffith and Strathfield properties, when this was not correct.

representing to Mr Shamoon that FLV had executed the loan and the mortgages and therefore Mr Shamoon could advance the funds, and they would be advanced to FLV, when this was not correct.

Breach of retainer

I accept that Mr David had an express retainer with Mr Shamoon and represented him as his lawyer in relation to the loan transaction. I accept Mr Shamoon’s version of the conversation on 24 March 2021, during which Mr David indicated that he would protect Mr Shamoon’s interests, including by ensuring that the loan was secured against FLV’s properties as the only mortgage. That evidence is consistent with the circumstances in which Mr David approached Mr Shamoon, including where Mr Shamoon knew Mr David and Ms David from the Assyrian community and the church and clearly trusted them by reason of his previous dealings, in which they acted for him as his lawyers. English was not Mr Shamoon’s first language and he struggled to read English and relied on lawyers and others to read documents to him. Mr Shamoon would have also drawn comfort from the transaction with Mr Awraham, in which Mr David acted for Mr Awraham and prepared the relevant documentation for the loan agreement on his behalf and ensured eventual recovery of the full loan amount, interest and “damages”.
The existence of a retainer is also strongly supported by Mr David’s preparation of the loan documentation and his subsequent communications with Mr Shamoon. It is also consistent with there not being one file note of any alleged conversation with Mr Violi about the loan, but several with Mr Shamoon. Similarly there are many text messages and emails between Mr David and Mr Shamoon and none with Mr Violi.
Even if there was no express retainer, I accept the existence of an implied retainer. The proper inference to be drawn from the background to, and circumstances of, the transaction as found is that Mr David tacitly agreed to act for Mr Shamoon in relation to the transaction: Polon v Dorian [2014] NSWSC 571 at [681] (Hall J) (Polon v Dorian).
And even if Mr David made clear that he was acting for the borrower, the fact that he accepted responsibility to prepare the relevant documents for Mr Shamoon strongly suggests the existence of an implied retainer: see eg Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92.
The only term of the retainer pleaded by Mr Shamoon was an implied term that Mr David would “prepare the Transaction Documents [ie the loan agreement and the mortgages] and advise [Mr] Shamoon on the loan transaction with reasonable care.” That implied term was breached in a number of ways.
First, as noted above, I do not accept that Mr Violi was aware of or authorised the Shamoon loan. I accept that Mr David showed Mr Shamoon a signed document when recommending the transaction. Mr David’s recommendation of the loan in those circumstances was an unmistakable breach of his duty to Mr Shamoon, as was his facilitation of the payment to Pacific Carbon, in circumstances where that entity was not a party to the loan agreement.
Secondly, and relatedly, Mr David did not provide any advice to Mr Shamoon in relation to the intended purpose of the loan. Mr David accepted in cross-examination that the loan was for Suria Global, but he did not know its purpose. Seen in that light, Mr David’s representations to Mr Shamoon that the loan was required in relation to the Griffith shopping centre, and his drafting of the recital to that effect in the loan document, were plainly incorrect and constituted a breach of Mr David’s retainer.
Thirdly, Mr David did not inform Mr Shamoon of the existence of the GEMI lenders’ mortgages or the fact that Mr Shamoon could not register a mortgage on title without their permission. He did not advise of the risk that the equity in the FLV properties would not be sufficient to secure Mr Shamoon’s loan. Even if Mr David was not aware that the equity in the properties was actually insufficient, having known of the existence of the GEMI lenders’ mortgages and the fact that they had not been repaid on their terms and that very high default interest was accruing on a compound basis, he ought to have made enquiries and provided advice to Mr Shamoon as to whether it was possible for repayment of the loan to be adequately secured. This was also inconsistent with Mr David’s statement that Mr Shamoon would be the only mortgagee.
Fourthly, and in any event, Mr David did not take any steps to register Mr Shamoon’s interest on title. Mr David’s representation to Mr Shamoon that he had registered “a document” was false. In fact, caveats over FLV’s properties were only registered in December 2022, after Mr Shamoon consulted new lawyers.
Although the claim was also brought against Ms David, who had historically acted for Mr Shamoon, I accept Mr Shamoon’s evidence that she did not act for him in the transaction, as it was Mr David who recommended the transaction, prepared the documents and took Mr Shamoon through them and generally communicated with him. In those circumstances the claim can be resolved by reference to the allegations against Mr David.

Misleading or deceptive conduct

A preliminary issue is that Mr Shamoon’s pleadings, and his senior counsel’s submissions, were ambiguous as to whether the claim for misleading or deceptive conduct was brought under s 18 of the ACL as sch 2 to the CCA, or by reference to s 18 of the ACL as applied by s 32(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) (FTA). Mr and Ms David proceeded on the assumption that the claim against them is brought under the CCA, as they have relied on s 137B of that Act in their Amended Commercial List Response. But that regime only applies to contraventions of the ACL by corporations, or by persons in other circumstances not relevant or applicable to this case: see s 131(1) CCA; Zervas v Burkitt (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 236 at [57] (Bell P, Macfarlan and McCallum JJA agreeing). Rather, it is the ACL as given effect to by s 28(1) FTA that applies to the claims against Mr David and Ms David as persons carrying on business within this jurisdiction: see also s 32 FTA. However, in view of the ambiguity of Mr Shamoon’s pleadings, and the fact that the David parties have taken no issue as to the inapplicability of the Commonwealth regime (and indeed have relied on it in defence of the claim), I consider there is no denial of procedural fairness, and it appropriate to deal with the claim on the basis of the State regime.
Mr Shamoon’s pleaded case is that Mr David made representations as to the identity of the borrower, the validity of the execution of the loan agreement, and that the loan was “guaranteed” and secured against the Griffith and Strathfield properties as the sole form of mortgage security, all of which were not true. Mr Shamoon says that if he had been aware of the inaccuracy of those representations, he would not have agreed to make any advance and would not have made the payment to Pacific Carbon. Mr Shamoon says that those representations constitute conduct which was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive under s 18 ACL.
I agree. I accept that, during their discussions in March 2021, Mr David represented to Mr Shamoon that FLV had executed the documents and agreed to be bound by its terms, and that the loan would be guaranteed and would be secured against the properties as the only mortgage. As noted above, I accept that Mr David told Mr Shamoon: “These two properties will only have the mortgage security for your loan registered on them.” Those representations constitute conduct in the course of trade or commerce: see McLennan v Clapham [2019] ACTSC 1 at [139] (McWilliam AsJ, as her Honour then was); Kowalczuk v Accom Finance Pty Ltd (2008) 77 NSWLR 205 at [328]-[351] (Campbell JA, Hodgson and McColl JJA agreeing). They also were false. They were likely to, and did, lead Mr Shamoon into error: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 at [39] (French CJ, Crennan, Bell and Keane JJ). As noted above, I accept that Mr Shamoon relied on Mr David as his lawyer and trusted him as a member of the Assyrian community, including because of his previous relationship with Mr David and his difficulties with English. I consider it is inherently unlikely that Mr Shamoon would have entered into the transaction without legal advice and without the assistance of a lawyer in preparing the relevant documents. Mr Shamoon’s evidence was that he always had a lawyer assist him with contracts, or at least have an assistant read contracts to him.
I accept that Mr Shamoon's decision to lend money was, in part, influenced or motivated by his desire to achieve a similar return as that previously achieved by Mr Awraham. But that does not exculpate Mr David of liability to Mr Shamoon. It is “sufficient that the [deceptive] conduct be a cause” of Mr Shamoon’s loss, in the sense that it “materially contributed to the relevant loss”, rather than being the sole cause thereof: Skinner v Redmond Family Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 329 at [138] (Gleeson JA, Macfarlan JA and Barrett AJA agreeing), citing I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (2002) 210 CLR 109 at 119-20 (Gleeson CJ); Re HIH Insurance Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 482 at [37] (Brereton J). I am satisfied that, but for Mr David’s representations, Mr Shamoon would not have provided the loan.

Shamoon remedy and David defences

Having found that Mr David is prima facie liable, the pleaded defences must be considered before determining the appropriate remedy, to which Mr Shamoon is entitled.
In his Amended Summons, Mr Shamoon sought damages for breach of the retainer, or alternatively damages for negligence, and further or alternatively damages for misleading or deceptive conduct. The measure of damages sought was described in the opening submissions provided by Mr Shamoon’s counsel as “damages equivalent to the loan principal, plus consequential losses, including any inability to recover from FLV or Pacific Carbon”. The opening submissions also indicated that relief was sought for breach of fiduciary duty; but that claim was not pleaded, and it is not appropriate to determine it.
The contractual term which Mr David breached was a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in preparing the loan documents and advising Mr Shamoon in relation to the transaction. Breach of that term entitles Mr Shamoon to damages that will, as far as practicable, place him in the same position as if that term had been performed: Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850; 154 ER 363 at 365. The measure of damages depends on whether, had Mr David performed his contractual obligations, Mr Shamoon would have still advanced the money. I accept that, had Mr David not breached his retainer, Mr Shamoon would not have advanced the money. As at March 2021, FLV’s properties were subject to the GEMI lenders’ registered mortgages, and there was a real question as to whether the residual equity in those properties (if any) would be sufficient to secure Mr Shamoon’s loan. The issue of security was at the heart of the viability of the transaction for Mr Shamoon, such that Mr David’s advice and breach of duty was critical to Mr Shamoon’s decision to advance the money, particularly so when Ms David had advised that the loan, without reference to any security, was very risky. So understood, this is not a case where a lawyer has provided negligent advice in relation to one aspect of an otherwise risky transaction, such that it would be inappropriate to make the lawyer the “underwriter of the financial fortunes of the whole transaction”: Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors [2018] AC 599 at [41] (Lord Sumption JSC). The appropriate measure of damages is the outstanding amount of the loan principal that Mr Shamoon would otherwise have lost by reason of Mr David’s breach, namely, $1,900,000. The same measure of damages applies to Mr Shamoon’s ACL claim: cf Wyzenbeek v Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in liq) (2019) 272 FCR 373 at [108] (Rares, Burley and Anastassiou JJ).
I do not consider it appropriate to make any allowance for any unpleaded and unidentified “consequential losses”.

Limitation of liability – professional standards scheme

It was not in issue that, at the relevant time, Mr David was a member of the Law Society of New South Wales Professional Standards Scheme (the Scheme), approved under the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW) (PSA), under which Mr David’s liability is said to be limited to $1.5 million, inclusive of Mr Shamoon’s costs.
The Scheme limits the civil liability (arising in tort, contract or otherwise) of a participating member for damages arising from a single cause of action founded on an act or omission in relation to the provision of legal services to the extent that those damages exceed a monetary ceiling specified in clause 4.4: see clause 4.1 of the Scheme; s 28 PSA. By dint of s 5(1) PSA, the Scheme does not operate to limit liability for damages arising from “a breach of trust” or “fraud or dishonesty”. If a member of the scheme is able to satisfy the Court that they have the benefit of an insurance policy insuring them against the liability to which the cause of action relates, and the amount payable under that policy is not less than the amount of the monetary ceiling, then the member is “not liable for damages in relation to that cause of action above the amount of that monetary ceiling”: clause 4.2. Damages are defined in s 4(1) to include costs and interests on damages or costs.
No issue was raised as to the applicability of the Scheme to the claim against Mr David and Ms David. In those circumstances, I proceed on the basis that it applies and Mr David’s liability is limited to $1,500,000 including costs and interest.

Contributory negligence of Mr Shamoon?

Mr David also pleaded that Mr Shamoon was contributorily liable for any loss he suffered and was wholly or partly responsible for that loss through a failure to take reasonable care. It was pleaded that any damages payable ought to be reduced to nil or to what is just and equitable, pursuant to either Part 1A, Division 8 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA) or s 137B CCA. As I have explained, the CCA regime is inapplicable to the claim against Mr David.
Part 1A of the CLA applies to the claim against Mr David for breach of retainer: see s 5A CLA. There is a question, which is unnecessary for me to resolve here, whether it applies to a claim under s 18 ACL as given effect to by s 28(1) FTA: see eg Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Milanex Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2011] NSWCA 367 at [87] (Macfarlan JA).
The argument that Mr Shamoon failed to take reasonable care by advancing the loan money was premised on the “obviously risky” nature of the transaction, Mr David’s version of events that there was no signed agreement or arrangement for security in place at the time Mr Shamoon paid the advance, and Ms David’s advice to Mr Shamoon. Counsel for Mr David submitted that Mr Shamoon’s damages should be reduced “substantially, and at least in the range of 25 to 50%.”
But as I have explained, I accept that Mr David showed Mr Shamoon an executed copy of the loan agreement and explained it to him. I have also found that Mr David made representations to Mr Shamoon as to the viability of the transaction, which influenced his entry into the transaction, and which tell strongly against a finding of contributory negligence in this case: see Polon v Dorian at [883]ff (Hall J). I am not persuaded that the advance of the loan money by Mr Shamoon, in the circumstances I have found, constituted a failure to take reasonable care. Rather, this is a case where it was reasonable for Mr Shamoon to rely on Mr David to perform his duty: Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1 at [30] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
Therefore, it is not appropriate to reduce Mr Shamoon’s compensation entitlement at all.

How the case was run

On 23 August 2024, the matter was set down for hearing with an estimate of 30 days commencing on 7 July 2025. The usual order for hearing was made. On 2 July 2025, Hammerschlag CJ in Eq vacated the hearing dates because the parties had not provided a court book in compliance with the usual order for hearing.
The parties were granted liberty to apply to have the hearing dates reinstated, once the default in the preparation of the court books had been purged. On the morning of 4 July 2025, the parties sought that the matter be listed before Hammerschlag CJ in Eq and offered to provide court books to his Honour’s chambers by 4pm that day. His Honour refused to list the matter, because the breach had not been purged; no court books had in fact been provided to the Court and the parties’ lengthy written submissions were not annotated to the court books.
On Monday 7 July 2025, after close of business, the GEMI lenders’ solicitors wrote to the Court indicating that compliant court books would be provided to the Court by 10am on 8 July 2025. By that time the hearing dates that had been otherwise allocated and were no longer available to the parties. His Honour listed the matter for directions on 11 July 2025.
On that day, counsel for the parties appeared in the Commercial List seeking new hearing dates. The estimate of time had reduced from 30 hearing days to 12 hearing days. On the assurance of counsel that the previous breach of Court orders concerning the Court books had been rectified, new hearing dates were allocated. However, in fact there remained non-compliance with the orders for Court books, as still none had been delivered to the Court.
When the Court book was finally provided to the Court on 15 July 2025 without apology for the delay, it comprised 17 large volumes of material. In addition to that, 13 exhibits were tendered. However, as so often is the case, only about 10-20% of the material was actually referred to in submissions or cross-examination. Further, not all documents were in chronological order, and there was duplication of documents. It should not be necessary to stress that it is incumbent upon parties to comply with Court orders and to assist the Court to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings: see s 56(1)-(4) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). That obligation also extends to the legal practitioners representing the parties: see s 56(4)(a). The wholesale provision of documents in a court book upon which the parties do not actually rely not only contradicts the requirements of Practice Note SC Eq 3, but is also inimical to the duty imposed on the parties by s 56 CPA: see eg Adelaide Concrete Cutting & Drilling Pty Ltd v Marino (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 499 at [783]-[788] (Meek J).

Conclusion

For the reasons above I have found the following.
First, GEMI has succeeded in demonstrating that Mr Violi knew of and authorised the GEMI loan and its extensions. It is therefore not necessary to consider and determine any of GEMI’s alternative arguments. GEMI is therefore entitled to enforce its mortgages, which secured the loaned money.
Similarly, GI 214 has succeeded in demonstrating that Mr Violi knew of and authorised its loan, and the Violi parties do not challenge the interest rate charged.
Secondly, Mr Violi did not sign and did not authorise the Shamoon loan. Therefore, Mr Shamoon cannot enforce that loan. However, Mr David breached his retainer with Mr Shamoon and Mr Shamoon is entitled to damages of $1,500,000, in view of the operation of the Scheme limitation of liability. In the alternative, Mr David engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, in relation to which Mr Shamoon is entitled to compensation in the same sum.
Thirdly, I do not accept it is appropriate to reduce Mr Shamoon’s compensation entitlement by reason of any failure to take reasonable care.
Mr Shamoon is also, at his election, entitled to an order for money had and received from Pacific Carbon for $1,900,000.

Appropriate orders

For the reasons above, I direct that:

On or before 4pm on 4 September 2025, the plaintiffs in each proceeding serve on the defendants in each proceeding short minutes of order intended to give effect to these reasons for judgment together with the orders they propose in relation to costs and any necessary explanation;

On or before 4pm on 11 September 2025, the defendants in each proceeding:

if they agree with the plaintiffs’ short minutes of order, notify the plaintiffs and my Associate of their agreement, in which case the orders will be considered in chambers;

if they do not agree with the plaintiffs’ short minutes of order, serve on the plaintiffs a document (which may include alternative short minutes of order) setting out the matters on which they disagree and provide copies of the plaintiffs’ short minutes of order and their document to my Associate, in which case the matter will be listed, initially for directions, at 9:00 am on 15 September 2025, or such other date as is agreed with my Associate, to deal with all outstanding issues.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 August 2025

Medium Neutral Citation:	GEMI 169 Pty Ltd v Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd; Shamoon v F & L Violi Pty Ltd (No 9) [2025] NSWSC 975
Hearing dates:	28 July - 31 July, 4 - 7, 11 and 12 August 2025, further submissions 21 and 22 August 2025
Date of orders:	28 August 2025
Decision date:	28 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Commercial List
Before:	Peden J
Decision:	See [501]
Catchwords:	MORTGAGES AND SECURITIES – Mortgages – Registered mortgages – Attendant loan agreements – Where third tier lenders register mortgages against titles to commercial properties – Mortgagor disclaims having executed loan agreements – Mortgagor contends impersonators forged signatures on loan agreements voiding mortgages – Signatures on agreements unusual and uncharacteristic – Sums advanced allegedly for development of non-existent cryptocurrency – Cryptocurrency promoted by suspicious persons – Whether mortgagor’s director authorised loans and mortgages – Whether mortgages enforceable against mortgagor’s properties – Mortgages executed at behest and to knowledge of director of mortgagor – Mortgages enforceable – No issue of principle MORTGAGES AND SECURITIES – Mortgages – Equitable mortgages – Equitable mortgage of legal interest – Attendant loan agreement – Where private lender advanced money on solicitor’s assurance that repayment guaranteed by mortgage – Where purpose of loan in recital expressed to be renovation and development of mortgagor’s commercial shopping centre – Where purpose of loan also represented to be for bank fee for release of “sovereign funds” for cryptocurrency – Whether purported mortgagor executed loan agreement and agreed to grant mortgage – Whether solicitor alternatively liable to lender for breach of retainer or misleading or deceptive conduct – Purported equitable mortgage ineffectual – Claim against solicitor for breach of retainer upheld – Claim against solicitor for misleading or deceptive conduct upheld CIVIL PROCEDURE – Court administration – Overriding purpose – Just, quick and cheap resolution – Obligations on parties and legal practitioners to assist Court in furthering overriding purpose – Preparation and quality of court books –Parties fail to provide court books in accordance with Court orders – Parties provide assurance at subsequent directions hearing that breach has been rectified – Court books ultimately delivered overly voluminous, not presented in chronological order, and required further insertions prior to trial – Fraction of documents in court books relied on at trial – Whether such conduct consistent with parties and practitioners’ obligations to further overriding purpose – No issue of principle
Legislation Cited:	Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CB Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 58(1), 135 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 56 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) ss 28(1), 32(1) Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW) ss 4(1), 5(1), 28 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) ss 56C, 129
Cases Cited:	Adelaide Concrete Cutting & Drilling Pty Ltd v Marino (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 499 Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) (2012) 207 FCR 448 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 Australian Financial Services Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560 Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 David v Livingstone (Liquidator); Re Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) (in liq) [2023] FCA 1663 Elite Realty Development Pty Ltd v Sadek [2022] NSWSC 1333 Gregg v R [2020] NSWCCA 245 Gulic v Boral Transport Ltd [2016] NSWCA 269 Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors [2018] AC 599 Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v NSW (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127 I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (2002) 210 CLR 109 Jeans v Cleary [2006] NSWSC 647 Kowalczuk v Accom Finance Pty Ltd (2008) 77 NSWLR 205 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 McLennan v Clapham [2019] ACTSC 1 National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309 Nevin v B & R Enclosures Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 339 Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92 Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Milanex Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2011] NSWCA 367 Peter Sleiman Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] NSWCA 81 Polon v Dorian [2014] NSWSC 571 PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2021] NSWCA 312 Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134 Re HIH Insurance Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 482 RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Ianni [2016] NSWCA 270 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850; 154 ER 363 Satz v ACN 069 808 957 Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 365 Skinner v Redmond Family Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 329 Wyzenbeek v Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in liq) (2019) 272 FCR 373 Zervas v Burkitt (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 236
Texts Cited:	Practice Note SC Eq 3
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	2022/00181916: GEMI 169 Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff; First Cross-Defendant) GI 214 Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff; Second Cross-Defendant) Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd (First Defendant; Fifth Cross-Defendant) John Ata Alan Lutui (Second Defendant; Fourth Cross-Defendant) F & L Violi Pty Ltd (Third Defendant; First Cross-Claimant) Francesco Paul Violi (Fourth Defendant; Second Cross-Claimant) Fred David (Fifth Defendant; Third Cross-Defendant) Jason La Rocca (Sixth Defendant) Pacific Carbon Group Pty Ltd (Seventh Defendant) Registrar-General of New South Wales (Sixth Cross-Defendant) 2023/00219378: Elias Shamoon (Plaintiff; First Cross-Defendant) F & L Violi Pty Ltd (First Defendant; Cross-Claimant) Pacific Carbon Group Pty Ltd (Second Defendant; Third Cross-Defendant) Fred David (Third Defendant; Second Cross-Defendant) Suzy David (Fourth Defendant) GEMI 169 Pty Ltd (Nineteenth Defendant) GI 214 Pty Ltd (Twentieth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: 2022/00181916: M Ashhurst SC, H Somerville, D Meyerowitz-Katz and M McGirr (Plaintiffs; First and Second Cross-Defendants) S Golledge SC, D Edney and A Keevers (Third and Fourth Defendants; Cross-Claimants) D Miller SC and T Kane (Fifth Defendant; Third Cross-Defendant) H Altan and C Angus (Sixth Cross-Defendant) 2023/00219378: F Corsaro SC and D Ratnam (Plaintiff; First Cross-Defendant) S Golledge SC, D Edney and A Keevers (First Defendant; Cross-Claimant) D Miller SC and T Kane (Third and Fourth Defendants; Second Cross-Defendant) M Ashhurst SC, H Somerville, D Meyerowitz-Katz and M McGirr (Nineteenth and Twentieth Defendants) Solicitors: 2022/00181916: Summer Lawyers (Plaintiffs; First and Second Cross-Defendants) Benjamin J Horne (Third and Fourth Defendants; Cross-Claimants) Moray & Agnew (Fifth Defendant; Third Cross-Defendant) 2023/00219378: McNally Jones Staff (Plaintiff; First Cross-Defendant) Benjamin J Horne (First Defendant; Cross-Claimant) Moray & Agnew (Third and Fourth Defendants; Second Cross-Defendant) Summer Lawyers (Nineteenth and Twentieth Defendants)
File Number(s):	2022/00181916 2023/00219378
Publication restriction:	Nil