Su v So, Verekers Lawyers v So

These appeals concerned a dispute arising from the sale of a property. Mr Su sought leave to appeal against findings made by the primary judge in the District Court, which had found him liable for deceit and awarded compensatory and exemplary damages. Verekers Lawyers also sought leave to appeal against orders made by the primary judge in the District Court concerning their responsibility in the litigation. The appeals were heard together by Allsop P, Tobias JA, and Sackville AJA.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that Mr Su had committed the tort of deceit, specifically in relation to the fraudulent and unauthorised appending of a signature to a contract of sale of property. The court was also required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in the assessment of compensatory and exemplary damages awarded against Mr Su, and whether Verekers Lawyers bore responsibility for the litigation due to their actions in witnessing a signature.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the primary judge's findings of deceit against Mr Su were not supported by the evidence. The court noted that the primary judge's findings were based on an assessment of the unreliability of oral evidence, but that these findings were not sufficiently grounded in objective factors. Consequently, the court set aside the District Court's orders that had found Mr Su liable for deceit and awarded damages against him. The proceedings against Verekers Lawyers were also dismissed.