Ms Rajveer Brar claimed she had loaned Mr Simranjit Singh Bal the sum of $3,500 (AUD) so that he could urgently pay his migration agent, Mr Ingle. It was “on or about 19 September 2014” according to the judgement released by ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal published last week.
According to the judgement, Ms Brar “made the loan by depositing the $3500 directly into Mr Ingle’s account. She says some months later she sought to recover the money, but the respondent refused to repay it and thereafter severed contact with her.”
After four years, Ms Brar wanted her $3,500 back through the tribunal.
Mr Simranjit Singh Bal, on the other hand, denies the existence of any loan from Ms Brar.
“He stated that his brother had acquired the $3,500 in cash from third parties and had then given that money to him, and he had in turn then provided it to the applicant, so that she or her husband could pay Mr Ingle on his behalf,” reads the judgement.
There is no document to support either claim although there were some witnesses from both the sides. Mr Varinder Singh, a friend of Ms Barar, gave evidence that it was “very common” for members of the Sikh community in the ACT to loan each other small sums of money.
“I give my friends some money and they have given me back. So it is a common practice. Like, we just trust each other. We try to help each other,” said Mr Varinder Singh in his testimony adding, “.. as long as I know that person a little bit and I'm thinking he's in need and if I can help him, which is, like, the main motto of our culture, our religion, then I will definitely help him.”
Mr Bachittar Singh Bal appeared in support of his brother Mr Simranjit Singh Bal. According to the judgement, Mr Bal “claims that his brother had acquired the $3,500 in cash from third parties.
Mr Simranjit Singh Bal also claimed that he “was forced to marry with the applicant’s sister so that she could arrive in Australia on a spouse visa. I did not fulfil this unlawful demand. The applicant made it clear to me that if I will not marry with the applicant sister then I have to bear the consequences.”
Businessman hands holding money - Australian dollar bills Source: loandesk
Ms Brar denied this saying she does not have an unmarried sister.
However, the AAT observed that “it appears to be common ground between the parties that the discussion may have been about the respondent marrying or at least meeting the applicant’s cousin. For whatever reason, that did not work out.”
Ms Heidi Robinson noted a challenge with the case was the absence of “clear documentary evidence” which supported either side.
Ms Robinson dismissed Ms Brar’s claim. She observes, “I note in passing that there is another issue that arises in this case, one that was not well argued, but which nonetheless plays on my mind – and that is the question as to whether, assuming the applicant ‘loaned’ the money to the respondent, that loan was even intended to create a legally enforceable contractual promise to repay.”
And in the conclusion, Ms Robinson answers a pertinent question: Should one lend money to friends or family members?
“When lending money to family, friends, associates or fellow community members, or indeed when borrowing it, is important to get some written confirmation of the existence of the loan, the terms upon which it is made and the circumstances under which it may be repaid. This is the only way to ensure the interests of all parties are properly protected and avoid situations such as the present one,” reads the judgement.
