Christopher Peter Rose v A-Civil Aust Pty Ltd

2026/00055102

CONTRACT – on or about 17 December 2018, $1 million was deposited by the first respondent (A-Civil) into the bank account of the second respondent (Quadrant) – on 28 February 2025, A-Civil commenced proceedings against the appellant (Mr Rose), a director of Quadrant, and Quadrant (together, the Defendants), alleging that the $1 million payment was made pursuant to an oral agreement between A-Civil and Mr Rose (or, alternatively, Quadrant) on the basis that A-Civil would lend Mr Rose (or, alternatively, Quadrant) $1 million for a period of three months in return for $50,000 per month in interest – A-Civil sought to recover the $1 million, the unpaid monthly interest, and pre-judgment interest from the date repayment allegedly became due on 17 March 2019 – it was agreed that $1 million was received into Quadrant’s bank account and that that sum had not been repaid to A-Civil, however, the Defendants denied that any loan agreement existed between either of the Defendants and A-Civil – the Defendants mounted a defence that, if a loan had been made, then it was repayable on demand from 17 December 2018, rather than on 17 March 2019, and as such, A-Civil’s claim was out of time (the limitation defence) – the primary judge held that a Jones v Dunkel inference was to be drawn against the Defendants in relation to Mr Rose’s failure to give evidence and the Defendants’ failure to call a former general manager of A-Civil (Mr Vince Battaglia) who was “representing” the Defendants when A-Civil pursued repayment of the loan – the primary judge found that the terms of the loan were as A-Civil contended and, as the loan was due on 17 March 2019, the Defendants’ limitation defence necessarily failed – the primary judge further found that, notwithstanding that the $1 million was received by Quadrant, the loan agreement was made between Mr Rose and A-Civil – the primary judge ordered Mr Rose to pay A-Civil the sum of $1,150,000 (being the $1 million loan plus monthly interest), and pre-judgment interest in the sum of $470,912.44 – whether the primary judge erred in finding that an oral loan agreement existed between Mr Rose and A-Civil pursuant to which the $1 million received by Quadrant was on 17 March 2019 made repayable by Mr Rose to A-Civil – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Defendants’ limitation defence failed – whether the primary judge erred in finding that a Jones v Dunkel inference was required to be drawn in relation to the Defendants’ failure to call Mr Battaglia.

A-Civil Aust Pty Ltd v Rose [2025] NSWSC 1505