(1) Vartanians v St Gregory's Armenian School Inc (2) The Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Michael Ghougassian

The case involved two separate disputes brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. In the first matter, Vartanians sued St Gregory's Armenian School Inc over a dispute related to an account. In the second matter, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia sued Michael Ghougassian. The primary issue in both cases was determining the role of the parties involved in an accounting process and where the burden of proof lies in such proceedings. Specifically, it was necessary to clarify whether the party initiating the accounting process was the accounting party or the non-accounting party. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the appropriate course of action concerning moneys held in court, particularly in situations where the balance of proceeds from the sale of mortgaged property significantly exceeded the total amount claimed by the mortgagee.

The court examined the principles governing the accounting process between a mortgagor and a mortgagee. It was established that the party initiating the accounting process is the non-accounting party, while the other party is the accounting party. The court held that the onus of proof lies on the party who is the non-accounting party. Regarding the moneys held in court, the court determined that when the balance of proceeds from the sale of mortgaged property substantially exceeds the total amount claimed by the mortgagee, the excess should not be immediately paid out to the mortgagor. Instead, these funds should remain in court. They would be disbursed as and when the liquidator of the mortgagor demonstrates a proper need for the funds for the purposes of the winding up.

The court ruled that the moneys in question should remain in court until such time as the liquidator provides evidence of a legitimate requirement for those funds. This decision ensured that the funds would be available for any necessary expenses related to the winding up of the mortgagor's affairs while also preventing premature distribution of the excess funds. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to balance the interests of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, ensuring that the funds are used appropriately and in accordance with legal requirements.