Naumoski v NCR Australia Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned the liability of NCR Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent) for allegedly assisting in a breach of trust committed by a director of a defaulting trustee. The primary dispute revolved around whether the respondent, through its director, had sufficient knowledge of the breach of trust to be held liable. The matter was heard by Spigelman CJ, Giles JA, and Young CJ in Eq.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the facts established that the respondent's director had deliberately shut his eyes to the breach of trust. This required the court to determine if the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of wilful blindness or constructive knowledge on the part of the respondent, thereby making it liable for assisting in the breach.

The court found that the evidence did not support a finding that the respondent's director had deliberately shut his eyes to the breach of trust. The reasoning applied was that mere suspicion or a failure to make further inquiries, without more, was insufficient to establish the necessary level of knowledge required for liability for assisting in a breach of trust. The court concluded that no question of principle arose from the facts as presented.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed with costs. The respondent was also to receive a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act, provided it met the relevant eligibility criteria.