Maaz v Fullerton Property Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between Maaz, a builder, and Fullerton Property Pty Ltd, the principal. Fullerton had paid a progress claim submitted by Maaz, which included a statutory declaration by Maaz stating that all subcontractors had been paid. Subsequently, Fullerton became liable to pay subcontractors directly, as they had not been paid by Maaz. Fullerton then sought to recover these payments from Maaz, alleging that the statutory declaration was false and that Maaz had engaged in deceit. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Maaz had made a false statutory declaration in support of the payment claim, and if so, whether this constituted deceit. A further issue concerned the admissibility of business records from a subcontractor, tendered by Fullerton to prove that the subcontractor remained unpaid. The court also considered whether the authenticity of these business records could be inferred from their form, contents, or source, and whether their provenance and accuracy, not having been challenged, were sufficient to establish deceit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. It reasoned that the evidence, including the subcontractor's business records, established that Maaz had made a false declaration. The court found that the business records were admissible and sufficient to prove the debt owed to the subcontractor. Furthermore, the court concluded that Maaz's conduct amounted to deceit, as the false declaration was made knowingly and resulted in loss to Fullerton. The court applied principles relating to the admissibility of business records and the tort of deceit.

The appeal was dismissed, and Maaz was ordered to pay Fullerton's costs in the Court of Appeal.