Case: Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; 157 CLR 215
Outcome: cited
The signature that appears on the St George Authority is a cut and paste copy of the signature on the letter of 13 November 2001. That fact is demonstrated by several imperfections in the two signature that are identical. Most significant is that the top of the curve of the letter " G ", which was part of the typed name " Stanley G. Stevens " on the letter of 13 November 2001, is clearly visible as part of the purported signature on the St George Authority. That is a particularly damning fact from Mr Flammia's point of view. The St George Authority, containing that signature and copy of the driver's licence, was sent to St George Bank by facsimile from the office of Manna &amp; Flammia. It must have been apparent to Mr Flammia that he did not have an original of the St George Authority. 104 The internal memoranda made by officers of Colonial indicate that, before any payment would be made, it was necessary for identification to be produced. That is what led to Mr Flammia's letter of 30 October 2001 and the 30 October Certificate. It was not until after receipt of the 30 October Certificate that Colonial, through its officers, was induced to cause the cheque to be drawn on 9 November 2001. I am persuaded, on the balance of probabilities at least, that the 30 October Certificate induced Colonial to cause the cheque to be drawn. In any event, that was clearly Mr Flammia's intention. An inference can therefore be drawn that Colonial was induced to act as he intended it to act - see Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1984) 157 CLR 215. 105 I would confidently conclude that there is reliable and cogent evidence in support of Colonial's case in deceit against Mr Flammia and of LawCover's allegation that Colonial's claim against him arises out of fraudulent acts on his part. Accordingly, Mr Flammia must now elect whether to adduce evidence to rebut the conclusions that are provisionally open, on the evidence to date, that Colonial would be entitled to judgment against him in the sum of $438,802.80 plus interest and that his cross-claim would be dismissed. The matter is listed for directions on 9 November 2007, at which time Mr Flammia must elect whether he wishes to go into evidence. If so I will give directions for the further conduct of the proceeding. If not, I will fix a time for final submissions. I certify that the preceding one hundred and five (105) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate: Dated: 1 November 2007 Counsel for the Applicant/Cross-Claimant: Mr T M Thawley Solicitor for the Applicant/Cross-Claimant: Henry Davis York Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr P T Taylor with Mr J de Greenlaw Solicitor for the First Respondent Veritas Legal Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr J A Jobson Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Juris Lawyers Counsel for the Cross-Respondent: Dr A S Bell SC with Mr P Flynn Solicitors for the Cross-Respondent: Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk Dates of Hearing: 17,18,19,20,21 and 24 September and 11 October 2007 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/1655.html