A multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by Lisa Miller on behalf of her family trust against her estranged husband, Darren Starling, has been dismissed in the New South Wales Supreme Court. Justice Sirtes raised "grave concerns" about possible criminal offenses coming to light during the trial, noting significant discrepancies in key loan documents.

Miller's suit, initially filed in July 2023, claimed that her family trust, ELEM Investments, had loaned a total of $9,182,969.19 across three loan agreements to businesses associated with Starling, which he had failed to repay as guarantor. These companies, WetFix Pty Ltd or WetFix Holdings Pty Ltd, were involved in a now-defunct water-bottling business in Queensland. Both Starling and, for a period, Miller served as directors of these companies. The claim further alleged that Starling, while acting as sole director of the trustee company, had mortgaged several harbourside investment properties without Miller's knowledge or permission to fund the WetFix companies, which was described as a "breach of trust or fraud." Starling has denied all liability and allegations of fraud.

Document Discrepancies and Signature Issues

The plaintiff's case relied on a single version of each loan agreement. However, Justice Sirtes discovered multiple, inconsistent versions of these documents. One loan agreement, supposedly executed in June 2016, had a repayment date of March 2014 and an incorrectly formatted figure of '$1,8000' instead of '$1,800,000'. This agreement also failed to define critical terms and named two companies as guarantors instead of Starling personally.

Further issues arose with Starling's signature across the various documents. Justice Sirtes noted that two signatures on one version of a loan did not match each other, nor did they match signatures on a different version of the same loan. Differences were also observed in execution pages and the spacing of text between different versions of the same loan document. A third version of a loan agreement presented a "faint" justice of the peace stamp with an illegible identification number, raising questions about its authenticity. The court heard that critical signatures on multiple loan agreements were unwitnessed and undated.

When confronted with these inconsistencies, Miller could not provide explanations and instead denied the existence of the different versions, a demeanor Justice Sirtes described as "high-handed and dismissive."

Dismissal of Claims

Justice Sirtes stated he had "no confidence" as to which versions of the loan documents, if any, were genuine, noting that the only consistently appearing signature was Miller's. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the debt claim, finding that Miller and ELEM Investments had failed to prove the authenticity and legal effect of the documents on which their case depended. The judge clarified that this did not mean the loans never existed, only that their validity could not be proven through the submitted documentation.

The second allegation of fraud and breach of trust also failed due to insufficient evidence, described as a "bare assertion" by Miller, and a lack of proof of financial loss.

Referral for Investigation

In his published decision, Justice Sirtes expressed "grave concerns" that "several criminal offenses may have been committed in connection with the proceedings." He stated a duty to refer these matters to the appropriate authorities for investigation, while emphasizing that such a referral did not constitute a finding of misconduct. The parties have been given further time to address the court on why this course of action should not be taken. The proceedings are scheduled to return to court on July 10 for further directions regarding the referral and potential special costs orders. The legal status of the couple's marriage, who separated in 2018, remains unclear.