iscover Last chance for accountant accused of misleading, deceptive conduct
BusinessAn accountant facing accusations that he caused clients to enter loans, asset purchase agreements, and investment transactions “without proper disclosure or advice” has been warned of the consequences of not engaging with the court.
A business owner’s attempts to contact his former accountant, Adam Gillett, about an interlocutory application for default judgment proved futile, but the Federal Court of Australia was not prepared to award default judgment.
Instead, Justice Penelope Neskovcin has permitted the client to re-serve the documents via two new email addresses and three addresses.
The business owner alleged Gillett, while acting as accountant and financial adviser, “caused them to enter numerous loans, asset purchase agreements and investment transactions without proper disclosure or advice”.
“The applicants allege the respondent did so in breach of tortious and fiduciary duties of care, misleading and deceptive conduct prohibitions and the parties’ retainer and that they suffered loss or damage as a result of the respondent’s conduct,” the court said.
The applicants alleged that when trying to serve on the accountant, they were unable to locate him, and could not contact him by email address or phone number.
“The applicants’ solicitor attempted to serve the default judgment application materials on Mr Gillett by sending them to Mr Gillett’s email address, with a request for a read receipt, and by posting them via tracked post to [an] address,” the court said.
“The applicants sought a default judgment on the basis that they had emailed copies to Gillett’s email address, and posted copies to … [an] address.”
After sending copies of the application to this address, an affidavit in support of the application conceded that there was no read receipt confirming the email was received, and that the post status was “awaiting collection”.
“Whilst Mr Gillett’s whereabouts were previously unknown to the applicants, he has since provided an affidavit providing the [new] address as his business address. The applicants have not said that they have made any attempt to serve Mr Gillett personally at, or send documents to, the [new] address,” the court said.
The court noted that although the respondents engaged with the applicants following a failed mediation, they had stopped engaging after the default judgment application materials were emailed and posted to the accountant.
While the accountant failed to acknowledge receipt or respond to the applicants, the court was not satisfied that the accountant was adequately made aware of the application materials.
“In short, I am not satisfied that there is evidence that the default judgment application materials have been brought to Mr Gillett’s attention.
“Finally, in my view, it is appropriate to require the documents to be served on the respondent to be accompanied by a communication setting out in clear terms the possible consequences for him if he does not attend the hearing of the interlocutory application for default judgment.”
To give the accountant sufficient time to receive the application materials and file any responsive material, the court vacated the 31 August listing.
The case citation: Holland v Gillett [2026] FCA 1106 (10 August 2026).
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?Make Accountants Daily a preferred news source on Google.
