Skandar (aka Makari) v BSM Group Pty Ltd (as trustee for the BSM Discretionary Trust)

In the case of Skandar (aka Makari) v BSM Group Pty Ltd (as trustee for the BSM Discretionary Trust), the plaintiff, Skandar, who was also known as Makari, was sued by the defendant, BSM Group Pty Ltd, for a debt in the District Court. BSM Group Pty Ltd, as the trustee for the BSM Discretionary Trust, alleged that a loan made from the trust to Skandar’s spouse during their marriage should be repaid. Concurrently, Family Court proceedings were underway, which led to BSM Group Pty Ltd raising a question about the Family Court’s jurisdiction over the debt owed to it. The Family Court was asked to determine the proper forum for this debt claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to hear the debt claim and if it was appropriate to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court. This question involved an interpretation of section 90AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which outlines the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The court found that while the Family Court did have jurisdiction over the debt claim, there was a significant doubt regarding the appropriateness of the Family Court being the correct forum. The potential for inconsistent verdicts between the Family Court and District Court proceedings posed a risk of conflicting outcomes.

The court considered the implications of transferring the District Court proceedings to the Family Court or staying the District Court proceedings, but ultimately found it was not appropriate to transfer the matter in these circumstances. The court recognised the real possibility of inconsistent verdicts, which would be undesirable. Therefore, it was decided that the parties should be heard further on the matter. The court did not make a final determination on the transfer or stay of proceedings, leaving that decision to be addressed in further hearings.