CE Sales Pty Ltd v Elyas

1. [1]

   By Notice of Motion filed on 24 January 2025, the Plaintiff (CE Sales) seeks:

   1. (1)

      an order that [16]-[18] of the First Defendant’s (Mr Elyas’s) Defence filed on 16 December 2024 be struck out, pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rule 14.28(1);

   2. (2)

      judgment on admissions against Mr Elyas in the amount of $3,324,463.71 (together with interest to the date of judgment), pursuant to UCPR rule 17.7;

   3. (3)

      in the alternative, summary judgment against Mr Elyas pursuant to UCPR rule 13.1 in the amount of $3,324,463.71 (together with interest to the date of judgment); and

   4. (4)

      Mr Elyas to pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the motion.

The Pleadings

1. [2]

   Paragraphs [25]-[33] of the Statement of Claim filed on 14 October 2024 allege as follows (omitting particulars):

2. [3]

   Those paragraphs are admitted by Mr Elyas - see Defence at [6]-[7]. That is, Mr Elyas admits that the Payments were made by him for his personal benefit and without authority from CE Sales, and that the funds the subject of the Payments were misappropriated by him. He admits that he is liable in restitution to repay the amount of the Payments.

3. [4]

   Paragraph [10] of the Defence provides as follows:

4. [5]

   The reference to “[X to X]” is plainly a mistake. The intention was to refer to [16]-[18] of the Defence. Those paragraphs provide as follows:

5. [6]

   I am told that insofar as [10] of the Defence admits that Mr Elyas is liable for the repayment of “some” of the misappropriated funds, the qualification embodied in the word “some” is intended to pick up the defences that are pleaded at [16]-[18] of the Defence. That is, the reason why Mr Elyas contends that he is only liable for “some” of the misappropriated funds is because the defences pleaded at [16]-[18] of his Defence would serve to reduce the extent of his liability.

Mr Elyas’s Contentions

1. [7]

   Mr Saadat, who appeared for Mr Elyas, submitted as follows in respect of [16]-[18] of the Defence:

2. [8]

   Mr Saadat relied, in particular, on Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 6 (per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ) at [29]–[30]. Those paragraphs provide (omitting footnotes):

3. [9]

   Mr Saadat submitted that Astley v Austrust supports the proposition that contributory negligence may be relevant in non-tortious claims where statutory language allows for it.

4. [10]

   Mr Saadat also submitted that there “may be things that need to be amended or fixed in the defence” and referred to Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson [2017] NSWSC 939. In that case, Ward CJ in Eq declined to grant summary judgment. Her Honour held that various defences were inadequately pleaded but accepted that a reasonably arguable defence could potentially be pleaded (at [93]).

Consideration

1. [11]

   Mr Elyas admits that he misappropriated $3,624,463.71 and that he is liable to make restitution in that amount. He has paid $300,000. The only question that arises is whether he has any viable defences. The defences he relies on are those set out in his Defence at [16]-[18], which are set out above.

2. [12]

   There are serious difficulties with those paragraphs of the Defence.

3. [13]

   Paragraph [16] is a rolled-up plea alleging contributory negligence “and/or” a failure on the part of CE Sales to mitigate its loss.

4. [14]

   I accept Mr Saadat’s submission that contributory negligence may be relevant in non-tortious claims where statutory language allows for it. However, he did not point to any statutory language that allowed for it in the present circumstances. There is nothing from Astley v Austrust that supports the contention that Mr Elyas can defeat (in part) a claim against him for restitution in respect of misappropriated funds because of the alleged negligence on the part of CE Sales.

5. [15]

   As the plurality observed in Astley v Austrust at [21], at common law, contributory negligence defeated a plaintiff’s cause of action in negligence. The common law position was modified by section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW). But section 9 has no application to the present case. It does not erect a defence of contributory negligence to a claim for restitution in respect of misappropriated funds. Section 9 applies where the defendant’s conduct gives rise to a liability in tort in respect of which the defence of contributory negligence is available at common law, or where the defendant’s conduct amounts to a breach of a contractual duty of care that is concurrent and co-extensive with a duty of care in tort: see section 8. That is not this case.

6. [16]

   Nor does the Civil Liability Act erect any defence of contributory negligence upon which Mr Elyas could rely.

7. [17]

   Mr Elyas seeks to rely on section 5R of the Civil Liability Act – see Defence at [17].

8. [18]

   Section 5A(1) of the Civil Liability Act provides:

9. [19]

   Section 5R provides no assistance to Mr Elyas. The claim against him is not a “claim for damages for harm resulting from negligence, regardless of whether the claim is brought in tort, in contract, under statute or otherwise”. CE Sales’ claim against him for restitution in respect of misapplied funds is not a claim for harm resulting from negligence. CE Sales’ claim does not become a claim for damages for harm resulting from negligence merely because Mr Elyas wishes to advance a defence of contributory negligence. That being so, Part 1A (including section 5R) of the Civil Liability Act does not apply. Furthermore, section 5R does not create any defence; it modifies the way the law of contributory negligence operates under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965: see ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook (2008) 72 NSWLR 318; [2008] NSWCA 161 at [158].

10. [20]

    It would be a remarkable outcome if a defendant who has misappropriated funds to himself for his personal benefit (as in this case) could resist an order that he give full restitution on the basis that the person whose funds were misappropriated was careless in allowing the defendant to misappropriate. A defendant who takes advantage of another person’s (alleged) carelessness to misappropriate funds from them cannot be rewarded by being able to, in effect, retain some of the benefits of the misappropriation.

11. [21]

    This case is unlike one where the very purpose of the duty owed by the defendant is to protect the plaintiff’s property, where the defence of contributory negligence may still lie (see Astley v Austrust at [29]). In this case, Mr Elyas did not cause harm because he failed to exercise reasonable care in protecting CE Sales’ property. He caused harm because he misappropriated CE Sales’ property. He must give restitution in respect of the amounts so misappropriated. He misappropriated all of the Payments for his personal benefit and he cannot retain any of that benefit. There is no occasion to weigh any negligence on the part of CE Sales with negligence on the part of Mr Elyas.

12. [22]

    The Defence does not expose an alleged failure to mitigate loss separately from the allegation of contributory negligence. The particulars supporting the plea of the alleged failure to mitigate are the same as those supporting the plea of contributory negligence. There has been no articulation (in the Defence or otherwise) of how the defence could apply. It would be extraordinary if a person who misappropriated funds for his or her own personal benefit is excused from making full restitution on the grounds that the victim failed to mitigate its loss.

13. [23]

    In this case, CE Sales has avoided some of its loss because it has recovered $300,000 from Mr Elyas. It does not claim that amount. It seeks to recover from Mr Elyas the remaining amounts that he misappropriated but has failed and refused to restore. There could not be any mitigation that required CE Sales to do anything other than to seek to recover from the person who misappropriated its property.

14. [24]

    There has not been any articulation of a reasonably arguable defence of failure to mitigate.

15. [25]

    Mr Elyas pleads a causation defence at [18] of the Defence. This paragraph relies on section 5D of the Civil Liability Act.

16. [26]

    Section 5D provides:

17. [27]

    Having regard to the terms of section 5A (set out above), section 5D does not apply in this case. Nor can I discern how section 5D would have any application even apart from section 5A.

18. [28]

    Mr Elyas alleges that “any loss or damage sustained by the plaintiff was not caused or contributed to by any act or omission on the part of the second defendant but may have been contributed to by an act or omission on the part of the third defendant”. I do not understand how this, if correct, operates as a defence for Mr Elyas, the First Defendant. The fact, if it be correct, that the Third Defendant “may” have contributed to CE Sales’ loss does not exonerate Mr Elyas from his admitted liability to CE Sales.

Strike out

1. [29]

   UCPR rule 14.28(1) provides:

2. [30]

   I am satisfied that [16]-[18] of the Defence do not disclose a defence and are embarrassing. They should be struck out.

3. [31]

   Mr Saadat accepted that those paragraphs might be deficient. But he did not articulate how they could be improved to advance a reasonably arguable defence. No reasonably arguable defence has been identified.

Judgment on admissions

1. [32]

   UCPR rule 17.7 provides:

2. [33]

   Mr Elyas has admitted that he has misappropriated $3,624,463.71 and that he is liable in restitution to repay to CE Sales the amount of the Payments. He has repaid $300,000 to date. The balance is $3,324,463.71, which is the amount sought by CE Sales.

3. [34]

   The only defences advanced by Mr Elyas are those at [16]-[18] of the Defence. For the reasons set out above, I accept that none of those paragraphs in their current form disclose a defence. Nor am I able to discern based on the submissions how Mr Elyas could reformulate his Defence in a viable way.

4. [35]

   I have a discretion as to whether to exercise power under UCPR rule 17.7 to give judgment in favour of CE Sales by reason of the admissions in the Defence. If there had been some articulation of a possible reformulation of [16]-[18] of the Defence that was reasonably arguable, I would have declined to give judgment and would have given Mr Elyas an opportunity to propound an amended Defence.

5. [36]

   In those circumstances, in my view the interests of justice lie in favour of giving CE Sales judgment against Mr Elyas based on his admissions that he misappropriated funds from CE Sales. There should be no delay in CE Sales’ attempts to recover the amounts that were misappropriated.

Summary judgment

1. [37]

   CE Sales seeks, in the alternative, summary judgment pursuant to UCPR rule 13.1. In light of my conclusion about judgment on admissions, I do not need to consider this alternative. I note, however, that if I had not concluded that CE Sales was entitled to judgment under UCPR rule 17.7, I would not, for the same reasons, have granted summary judgment.

Orders

1. [38]

   The orders of the Court are:

   1. (1)

      Paragraphs [16]-[18] of the First Defendant’s Defence are struck out.

   2. (2)

      Judgment against the First Defendant in the amount of $3,324,463.71.

   3. (3)

      The First Defendant is to pay interest pursuant to section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

   4. (4)

      The First Defendant is to pay the costs of the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion filed on 24 January 2025.