It took a while but I was able to locate documents from the 2012 matter and after many pages I found the following.
What you say in your post does not seem to be supported by the docs. The only mention about royal is the short passage below.
If Royal was exonerated in court why did they pay Hillam?
The new claim, as I understand, its about selling "a stolen car" and I stress in their defense Royal is not a party in this matter.
However, see notes below
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION SACKAR J THIRD DAY: WEDNESDAY 16 MAY 2012 2010/00048042 JOHN FREDERICK HILLAM v IVAN PETER LEWIS COMMERCIAL LIST
Q. Now, you have settled your claim in these proceedings with the fifth and sixth defendants, haven't you? (ODGERS)
A. Correct. (Hillam)
Q. And do you have an understanding of the basis upon which you have settled those proceedings? (ODGERS)
A. Yes. (Hillam)
Q. And what is that understanding? (ODGERS)
A. I have relieved them from the claims that I have brought in this case against them. (Hillam)
Q. And are you to receive anything from them in return for your release of the fifth and sixth defendants? (ODGERS)
A. Yes. (Hillam)
Q. What is that? (ODGERS)
A. $100,000 (Hillam)
Q. And has a deed of release or some agreement, been prepared and signed in that regard? (ODGERS)
A. Yes. (Hillam)
ODGERS: I call for such document.
CONDON: I can't provide it immediately, but I can make a copy available in short compass. I will make those arrangements in place now.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MFE Price at posting:
3.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
