EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 29

SMBC Leasing and Finance v Flexirent Capital

A Federal Court finance case about forged customer contracts, non-existent assets, receivables warranties and liability under a master...

Federal Court of Australia30 Jan 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • When finance documents say receivables, assets or customer contracts exist, those warranties are not decorative.
  • A Federal Court finance case about forged customer contracts, non-existent assets, receivables warranties and liability under a master acquisition agreement.

Use this to check

  • Contract warranties about assets, receivables and customer contracts can create direct liability.
  • A business should verify what it promises in offer letters, drawdown notices and sale documents.
  • Fraud elsewhere in the chain does not necessarily protect the contracting party that gave the warranty.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • SMBC Leasing and Finance was one of several financiers caught by fraudulent transactions devised by Bill Papas through Forum-related entities.
    • In the 2018 arrangement, Forum Enviro purported to enter technology licence agreements with Veolia as Flexirent's undisclosed agent.
    • Flexirent then sold receivables and related assets to SMBC under offer letters issued under a master receivables acquisition agreement.
    • In reality, Veolia had not signed the agreements, the signatures were forged and the assets did not exist.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Court considered whether Flexirent breached contractual representations and warranties in the 2018 receivables acquisition documents, whether SMBC also made out misleading conduct claims, whether reliance was required for contract damages, and whether Flexirent was liable for SMBC's separate 2020 direct arrangement with Forum Enviro.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • SMBC succeeded on its primary 2018 contract claim and related indemnity claim against Flexirent, with Humm Group liable under a guarantee if Flexirent was liable.
    • The Court found the relevant warranties were promissory and false because the assets and receivables did not exist.
    • SMBC's statutory claims for the 2018 arrangement were also made out, but its claims against Flexirent for the separate 2020 direct arrangement with Forum Enviro failed.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • When finance documents say receivables, assets or customer contracts exist, those warranties are not decorative.
  • If the underlying transaction is fake, the business giving the warranty can face contract damages even if it says the financier should have done more checking.

Useful next steps

  • Contract warranties about assets, receivables and customer contracts can create direct liability.
  • A business should verify what it promises in offer letters, drawdown notices and sale documents.
  • Fraud elsewhere in the chain does not necessarily protect the contracting party that gave the warranty.
  • Separate later transactions may need their own causation and knowledge evidence.
  • Map every warranty in finance and receivables documents to evidence the business can actually prove.

Practical read

This case is a finance-document lesson dressed up in a large fraud. SMBC paid for receivables and assets that were supposed to come from real Veolia contracts. The documents said the receivables and assets existed and that the relevant transaction documents were valid. They were not.

Flexirent argued that SMBC needed to prove reliance on the warranties to recover for breach of contract. The Court rejected that as the main answer. The warranties in the signed commercial contract were promissory warranties. In ordinary terms, Flexirent had promised that the stated things were true. When they were not true, the contract was breached.

For smaller businesses, this matters in any invoice finance, equipment finance, receivables sale, distribution or supply-chain funding model. If your company gives warranties about customers, assets, invoices, delivery, title or payment rights, those warranties need verification behind them. It is not enough to say someone else in the chain lied. If your business is the one making the promise, the risk can land with you.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Map every warranty in finance and receivables documents to evidence the business can actually prove.
  • Check customer signatures, delivery records and asset existence before selling receivables.
  • Control who can act as agent and what evidence they must provide before binding the company.
  • Do not treat offer letters or drawdown notices as routine paperwork.
  • Record due diligence separately for each transaction, especially when a relationship changes.

Key takeaways

  • Contract warranties about assets, receivables and customer contracts can create direct liability.
  • A business should verify what it promises in offer letters, drawdown notices and sale documents.
  • Fraud elsewhere in the chain does not necessarily protect the contracting party that gave the warranty.
  • Separate later transactions may need their own causation and knowledge evidence.

Related topics

Finance, Payments & SecurityContracts & CommercialCompanies & Startups

How Sprintlaw can help

Contract ReviewRegulatory Compliance