Meeta and Sibi and Anors (No 3)

The Family Court of Australia considered an interim financial dispute between Ms Meeta (the mother) and Mr Sibi (the father), who were not married but had a child. Also named as respondents were Mr H Sibi (the father's brother), BC Pty Ltd (a company jointly owned by the father and brother), and BI Pty Ltd (a company in liquidation). The central issue revolved around the distribution of approximately $86,000 held in trust from the sale of real property, some of which was held by a corporate entity.

The court was required to determine three principal issues: whether the brother should be reimbursed approximately $30,000 for expenses he paid on behalf of the parties or their entities; whether the $86,000 should be used to satisfy arrears on a mortgage encumbering a property where the father resided; and whether the brother should be paid approximately $40,000 to cover a shortfall on a repossessed Mercedes Benz vehicle, for which he and the father were personal guarantors. The proceedings were conducted based on affidavit evidence and submissions of counsel, without cross-examination.

Regarding the brother's claim for reimbursement of $30,169.71 for expenses paid concerning properties owned by corporate entities, the court found that while documentary evidence was provided late, the payments were not seriously challenged. The court reasoned that as the company had assets and the brother had lent money to it, the debt should be paid from the trust funds, as it was an inevitable obligation that would affect the father's shareholding in the company. The court ordered that this amount be paid to the company. Concerning the mortgage arrears, the court declined the father's request to use the funds, agreeing with the mother's submissions that the pool of assets for division was already small, the father had caused the problem, and any adjustment at trial might not be straightforward given the father's circumstances and past conduct. Finally, the court refused the brother's request for funds to cover the Mercedes Benz shortfall, citing insufficient evidence regarding the car's valuation, the disputed circumstances of its repossession, and the potential for other resolutions, including the possibility of undisclosed assets held by the father.

The court ordered that $30,169.71 be paid from the net proceeds of sale to Mr H Sibi as reimbursement for expenses paid concerning the C Street property. The remaining net proceeds were to be deposited into an interest-bearing account pending further order. The amended applications filed by the second respondent (Mr H Sibi) and the father on 29 November 2012 were dismissed, with all other outstanding applications to await a listing for trial. The costs of all parties concerning these applications were reserved.