Hamod v State of New South Wales

The appeal concerned a dispute arising from a loan and mortgage transaction that was subsequently declared void. The appellant, Hamod (referred to as Milanex in the orders), was a mortgage broker who submitted loan application documents to a lender's agent. The respondent, the State of New South Wales, was a party to the proceedings, though the specific nature of its involvement as a respondent is not detailed in the provided text. The primary judge had made findings regarding the conduct of the parties and the extent of liability.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the mortgage broker had made misleading or deceptive representations to the lender's agent regarding the verification of the borrower's identity and the borrower's signature on the loan documents. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the lender had not relied on these representations due to the intervening conduct of its agents. The court also considered whether an independent solicitor, who witnessed the borrower signing the documents, was a concurrent wrongdoer under Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and how this might affect the mortgage broker's liability for the lender's loss.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It found that the primary judge had erred in their assessment of reliance and the apportionment of liability. The court determined that the solicitor was a concurrent wrongdoer and that the mortgage broker's liability should be reduced to reflect the solicitor's 35% responsibility for the lender's loss. The court also made orders regarding the payment of interest and costs, directing that Milanex pay Perpetual's costs of the cross-claim and claim at first instance, as well as the costs of the appeal. The court also provided directions for the parties to agree on or submit the amount of interest to be awarded.