Sachin Sharma v Insurance Australia Ltd trading as NRMA Insurance

Sachin Sharma (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the primary judge who found that he had intentionally caused the destruction of his property by fire, or had consented to another person doing so, thereby entitling NRMA Insurance (the respondent) to deny liability under the policy. The dispute concerned the respondent's refusal to indemnify the appellant for a fire that destroyed his home and its contents.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the objective evidence justified an inference that the appellant was the person who intentionally lit the fire, or that he had consented to another person doing so. Specifically, the court considered whether the use of phone records to establish common user of phones and the application of the principle of a "consciousness of guilt" finding were appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. It reasoned that the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's financial difficulties, the nature of the fire, and the appellant's conduct following the fire, collectively supported the inference that the fire was intentionally lit. The court found that the primary judge was entitled to draw inferences from the evidence, including the use of phone records to demonstrate a connection between the appellant and the person who ultimately lit the fire, and to infer consent or participation. The court applied the legal principle that in civil cases, findings of serious wrongdoing can be made on the balance of probabilities based on circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from that evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.