FMMI v Pittman (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 162

This case has been a long running saga. 

The borrowers’ loan was wholly set aside at first instance. Click here to see our case note

On appeal the lender succeeded in having the borrowers’ repay the amount of the loan that went towards discharge of their earlier loan. Click here to see our case note. 

The borrowers’ cross-claim against the fraudster which had previously been dismissed, was remitted on appeal for hearing given the lender’s success on appeal. The fraudster sought to have admissions made by her in her defence withdrawn. This was rejected by the court. Click here to see our case note

The fraudster now sought leave to file a further Amended Cross-Claim Defence with the effect of withdrawing the admissions. Given that such leave was rejected in December, it was suprising she found a solicitor prepared to run such a motion.

The court examined the proposed further Amended Cross-Claim Defence and noted that in substance, the fraudster was attempting to withdraw her admissions.

The court also noted that the fraudster had been found to be someone who was prepared to lie for her own interests at the expense of others. She now seeks findings entirely contrary to these and a second judgment which produced such inconsistency would be an offence to the administration of justice and undermine public confidence. The court refused to allow her to withdraw admissions by filing another defence, noting that she was attempting to have a “second go” at a second hearing to attempt to obtain a different result by changing her evidence. 

Click here to read the full judgment. 

Scroll to Top