The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for fraud and awarding the respondent $216,000 plus costs.
The respondent had been induced to invest $200,000 in a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by a co-defendant, who used the appellant's name and a 'show of money' transaction to give the scheme an air of legitimacy.
The trial judge found that the appellant was wilfully blind to the fraudulent scheme and his role in it.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's factual inferences and dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of liability based on wilful blindness.
