A judge has described an Albury businessman’s legal fight to avoid paying $70 million in damages as being “misplaced”, “not relevant” and having “no substance”.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Allan Endresz has been involved in court proceedings for 18 years since $8.275 million of misappropriated taxpayers' funds found their way into the bank accounts of his family businesses, including Davis Samuel Corporate Advisory Services.
He has denied blame for the error and is pushing forward with a counter-claim for the $4.3b in lost earnings.
ACT Supreme Court of Appeal Justice Richard Refshauge refused to set aside his 2013 ruling that Mr Endresz and associates pay $70m in compensation.
In his judgement, Justice Refshauge dismissed a claim the Commonwealth’s application should be declared a “nullity” because it had been amended incorrectly and did not refer to all individuals involved in the case.
He said he understood Mr Endresz “felt compelled to conduct a thorough investigation of the proceedings” during which he “uncovered” a number of “serious and profound legal issues”.
The justice disagreed, saying amendments remained within “metes and bounds” of the original application.
“There is no substance in the complaint of the applicant defendants that any of them were not properly parties to the proceedings because they had not been properly served … (they) could not identify for me any prejudice that they have suffered,” Justice Refshauge said.
“The applicant defendants knew exactly the case they were facing and participated fully, including to the extent of filing and prosecuting a counter-claim.”
The applicant defendants knew exactly the case they were facing and participated fully.
- Justice Richard Refshauge
Mr Endresz has welcomed the decision because it allowed him to take the case higher.
He said he would take inspiration from The Castle’s Darryl Kerrigan, representing himself in the High Court.
“The applicant defendants may have an opportunity to appeal to the High Court – that is not a matter with which I am presently concerned,” Justice Refshauge said.