Lin v Solomon

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellant, Lin, and the respondents, Solomon and others, concerning a guarantee. The primary judge had made orders against the appellant. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales by Meagher, Payne and White JJA.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in admitting evidence relating to unpaid rent and outgoings, specifically considering the effect of section 60 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) and whether the evidence constituted a business record under section 69 of that Act. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether representations were made by the appellant that constituted misleading or deceptive conduct, and if so, whether the respondents relied on those representations. A further issue was whether the primary judge should have recused herself due to apprehended bias.

The Court found that the primary judge had not erred in admitting the evidence of unpaid rent and outgoings, nor in her findings regarding misleading or deceptive conduct. The letter of demand was admitted for a non-hearsay purpose, and the evidence satisfied the requirements of a business record. However, the Court found that the primary judge had erred in relation to the issue of apprehended bias, and that this error required intervention.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part. The order of the primary judge was set aside and replaced with an order that the appellant pay the respondents the sum of $602,178.35 plus interest from 16 December 2016. The appellant was also ordered to pay the costs of the respondents in the Court of Appeal. The Registrar was directed to correct an erroneous entry in the District Court Registry.