A. & M. DRILLING & BLASTING SERVICES PTY. LTD. v BRIDGET ANNE CARROLL [2026] SADC 54

Applicant: A. & M. DRILLING & BLASTING SERVICES PTY. LTD. In Person Counsel: MR A DAL CIN - Solicitor: ANDERSONS Respondent: BRIDGET ANNE CARROLL - SELF-REPRESENTED No Attendance Hearing Date/s: 05/02/2026 File No/s: CIV-25-004393 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Civil: Application for Review) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. A. & M. DRILLING & BLASTING SERVICES PTY. LTD. v BRIDGET ANNE CARROLL [2026] SADC 54 Judgment of his Honour Judge Soulio 12 February 2026 ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES MISAPPROPRIATION - COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT Default judgment entered in favour of the applicant with damages to be assessed. Claim for damages - principal of applicant company engaged his daughter, the respondent, as an account keeper or bookkeeper for applicant company - applicant instituted proceedings against the respondent seeking recovery of moneys said to have been misappropriated in the course of the respondent's employment with the applicant. Held: Judgment for the applicant in the sum of $424,660.90. Interest of $125,000.00 awarded as a lump sum. Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 142; District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 39, referred to. Testel Australia Pty Ltd v KRG Electrics Pty Ltd [2013] SASC 91, considered. -- 1 of 6 -- -- 2 of 6 -- A. & M. DRILLING & BLASTING SERVICES PTY. LTD. v BRIDGET ANNE CARROLL [2026] SADC 54 Introduction 1 Mr Carroll, the principal of the applicant, engaged his daughter, Ms Carroll, the respondent, as an account keeper or bookkeeper to work for the applicant company for various periods.1 2 The employment came to an end.2 Thereafter the applicant instituted proceedings against Ms Carroll seeking recovery of moneys said to have been misappropriated, to use a global term, during the course of her employment. The proceedings were instituted on 15 April 2025. The respondent did not file a defence. Default judgment 3 On 23 May 2025, the applicant applied to the Registrar for judgment in default on that basis. On 27 May 2025 a record of judgment for relief to be assessed was sealed in this Court with the date of judgment recorded as 23 May 2025. Pre-trial hearing 4 On 30 September 2025 the matter was listed before me for a directions hearing. At that time the respondent attended. Orders were made setting the trial on the assessment of damages, commencing on Thursday 5 February 2026. Orders were made that the applicant file any further affidavit material to be relied upon as evidence-in-chief, by 17 October 2025, and that the respondent was to file any affidavit annexing documents upon which she proposed to rely, by 21 November 2025. 5 At the time of that directions hearing the issue of representation was discussed, as was the question of whether the respondent was to take an active part in the assessment of damages trial. I gave leave to call the matter back on should the parties have any issues in relation to compliance with the orders made, or in relation to any other matters that may arise. 6 On the morning of trial, and 21 minutes before the commencement of the trial, scheduled for 10.30 am, the respondent sent an email to the registry of this Court seeking an adjournment of the trial due to her alleged inability to obtain legal representation. An inquiry of the respondent was made in court following her request to attend by telephone for the purposes of her application to adjourn the trial. Her inability to attend at court was not explained. An order was made adjourning the trial to 2.15 pm to enable the respondent to attend, and if necessary to press her application. She in fact responded by email shortly before 2.15 pm advising that she did not intend to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits 1 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025 at [4]. 2 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025 at [7]. -- 3 of 6 -- [2026] SADC 54 2 filed by the applicant in support of its claim. She did not specifically say that she would not be in attendance. When the matter was called on at 2.15 pm she did not appear at the bar table. Her name was called in the precincts of the court, and there was no response. The matter proceeded. The applicant’s claim 7 The claim articulated by the applicant had sought the sum of $465,835.58 relying upon a number of causes of action. At the commencement of the trial, counsel for the applicant advised that the claim, insofar as it relied on the declaration of a constructive trust was not pursued, nor was the claim for exemplary damages pursued. 8 The claim as then articulated, involved a relatively straightforward matter of assessing the damages in respect of which liability, by virtue of the default judgment, was not in dispute. The trial 9 The hearing of the action proceeded pursuant to Uniform Civil Rules 142.6 and 142.9(3). The applicant relied upon the decision in Testel Australia Pty Ltd v KRG Electrics Pty Ltd,3 for the proposition that it was entitled to proceed on the face of the facts pleaded in the statement of claim, and that evidence to establish those facts was not required, although evidence adduced in support of the relief claim was admissible. As I have said, the basis of the claim was articulated in what became the undisputed allegations set out in the Statement of Claim. 10 The applicant relied on the affidavit of Ms Symons made 12 September 2025.4 Ms Symons had been engaged as the bookkeeper/accountant for the applicant, for a period of about one month prior to the departure of the respondent.5 I accept that Ms Symons conducted a careful analysis of the records. During the course of the trial I was taken to that analysis and to the supporting documents underlying her conclusions, which are not in the nature of expert evidence, but rather of arithmetical evidence, setting out the extent of the funds misappropriated by the respondent. 11 The applicant's claim is comprised of a number of categories of funds, misappropriated in different ways. Unauthorised Payments 12 The first of those were funds misappropriated by the respondent by making a series of 91 unauthorised payments from the applicant's bank account to the respondent's personal bank account, totalling $343,439.13. Each of those transactions had been made with the respondent providing a false reference for the payment, being the name of one of the various suppliers of goods or services to the 3 Testel Australia Pty Ltd V KRG Electrics Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] SASC 91 at [15]-[16] and [29]. 4 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025. 5 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025 at [4]. -- 4 of 6 -- [2026] SADC 54 3 applicant, such that the applicant's accounting software showed that those suppliers had been paid. In fact, as was demonstrated by Ms Symons and the underlying records, and I so find, each of those payments was made into the respondent's own bank accounts.6 False Claims 13 The second category related to payslips and other payments made by the respondent, being payments she had authorised personally to herself, in respect of hours not worked, payments for unjustified food allowances, and payments for long service leave - to which she was not entitled. It is apparent from an analysis of the records, that the total of the amounts she had paid herself, and to which she was not entitled, was the sum of $45,427.32.7 I reduce that by the sum of $4,046. The reason for that reduction is that that latter sum relied upon an inference being drawn that for a certain period the respondent had falsely claimed additional work hours. 14 Counsel for the applicant properly conceded that the evidence in respect of that amount did require that inference, and whilst the inference was open, I am not prepared to draw it to the degree required. Accordingly, I find the amount misappropriated in respect of overpayment of wages, superannuation, and other benefits is $41,381.32. Fraudulent Use of Credit Card 15 The third category relates to fraudulent use of the applicant’s business credit card. I am satisfied that the respondent used the applicant's credit card in order to make payments for items which were personal items, not for the applicant's benefit, and accordingly are to be regarded as misappropriated funds.8 An item of jewellery was purchased on 29 June 2018 for the sum of $4,249.50,9 which I find included the credit card fee. That sum must also be awarded. The respondent also applied the applicant's funds for the payment of personal expenses without the applicant's authority, totalling $21,736.20,10 which is also to be awarded. The respondent paid from the applicant's business Visa account, on an unauthorised basis, her private rental accommodation costs in the sum of $13,854.75.11 That sum is to be awarded. The third category amounts in total to $39,840.45. Conclusion 16 The total of the misappropriation, I find, is $424,660.90. 6 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025 at [14.1]. 7 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025 at [21]. 8 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025 at [17.1]. 9 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025 at [13]. 10 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025 at [23]. 11 Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Vicki Jane Symons dated 12 September 2025 at [24]. -- 5 of 6 -- [2026] SADC 54 4 17 Having heard from counsel as to interest and costs, I award interest in the sum of $125,000 as a lump sum.12 18 The total therefore is $549,660.90. 19 There will be judgment for the applicant in that sum against the respondent. 20 I award costs on a standard basis. 12 Pursuant to District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 39(1) and s 39(3). -- 6 of 6 --