The Turnbull family have lost a high-profile court case brought against a fund manager and longtime business associate, Russel Pillemer, after a judge found that evidence given by the former prime minister’s son was unreliable and he had a “willingness to lie” during cross -examination.
Alex Turnbull, the son of former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, launched action in the Supreme Court of NSW in 2020 seeking $12 million, alleging the family was misled into accepting cash for repayment of a loan made to Pillemer’s company Pengana in 2017.
Alex Turnbull alleged that Pillemer convinced the family company to accept cash rather than shares in Pengana without being told that Pillemer was in negotiations about a potentially lucrative merger with another firm. The Turnbulls alleged that if they had been told about the transaction, they would have sought shares in the business that had a far greater end value than the cash they had received.
The court case included allegations including that the younger Turnbull had made bullying threats to Pillemer and that the high-flying Turnbull clan had not fully disclosed assets. This included a controversial $6 million gift from Malcolm Turnbull to his son’s company that was made at the time he was still in politics.
Malcolm Turnbull, who was called to give evidence in the case, said he made the gift in the interest of transparency and was not involved in the transaction between his family business that was managed by his son and Pillemer, a longtime business associate of Turnbull senior .
The case also heard testimony from Pillemer that he did everything he could to persuade Alex Turnbull not to sell out of the investment company before the transaction with the other investment firm was completed.
On Friday, Justice Kate Williams dismissed the Turnbulls’ case – brought on behalf of family company Maurtray – saying that Alex Turnbull’s evidence and “his willingness to lie” were key elements in the case.
“Given Mr A Turnbull’s false evidence about the subject matter of these communications in his first affidavit, and his willingness to lie about the communications in cross-examination where he thought that he would assist Maurtray, I was reluctant to accept his self-serving evidence seeking to rationalize the communications in a manner consistent with Maurtray’s claims in these proceedings unless it was inherently plausible or consistent with other undisputed or reliable evidence.”