Maund v Crown in right of the State of New South Wales

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellant, Maund, and the respondent, the Crown in right of the State of New South Wales. The core of the disagreement revolved around the calculation of pre-judgment interest under section 100 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW). Specifically, the parties contested whether the threshold for an appeal as of right, which includes pre-judgment interest in its calculation, had been met, and what rate of interest should apply to an amount that the appellant was obliged to repay but which had been withheld by an employer and remitted to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider the meaning of "received" in the context of an obligation to repay an amount equal to that which was received. This involved deciding whether the obligation extended to an amount that, while legally owed to the appellant, was instead withheld by their employer and remitted directly to the ATO. Secondly, the Court had to determine the applicable rate of interest for such an amount, considering whether it should be reduced to the rate paid by the ATO when making refunds.

The Court reasoned that the obligation to repay an amount "equal to the amount received" did not extend to amounts that were never actually received by the appellant, even if they were legally due. In this instance, the employer's remittance of the funds directly to the ATO meant the appellant had not "received" the money in the relevant sense. Consequently, the Court found that the pre-judgment interest should be calculated on the amount actually received by the appellant, not the amount that was withheld and remitted to the ATO. Furthermore, the Court held that the applicable interest rate for the withheld amount, which was effectively held by the ATO, should be reduced to the rate the ATO would pay on a refund.

The Court ordered that the parties were to file agreed short minutes of order within seven days, reflecting these reasons. If agreement could not be reached, they were to file their respective contentions for the orders and submissions not exceeding three pages.