JOHNSTON v BECKER [1999] NSWSC 310

JOHNSTON v BECKER [1999] NSWSC 310

The interests of justice did not support transferring the proceedings to the Family Court. Although the Supreme Court proceedings and Family Court parenting proceedings were related, they were not closely related. The controversy had a more real and substantial connection with the Supreme Court of New South Wales because the principal dispute concerned property and maintenance remedies under de facto relationships legislation. The parenting dispute appeared ancillary and modest, and the s 117 child support claim was only a minor and undeveloped part of the controversy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 1999
Procedural Posture
De Facto Relationship Property Adjustment and Maintenance Proceedings With an Application for a Cross Vesting Transfer / Notice of Motion Filed 29 March 1999 for a Cross Vesting Order Transferring the Proceedings to the Family Court of Australia
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['cross Vesting' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'appropriate Forum' 'interests of Justice' 'property Adjustment' 'maintenance' 'parenting Orders']
['practice and Procedure' 'family Law' 'de Facto Relationships' 'child Support'] ['cross Vesting' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'appropriate Forum' 'interests of Justice' 'property Adjustment' 'maintenance' 'parenting Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

De Facto Relationship Property Adjustment and Maintenance Proceedings With an Application for a Cross Vesting Transfer / Notice of Motion Filed 29 March 1999 for a Cross Vesting Order Transferring the Proceedings to the Family Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Family Court of Australia under subs 5 (1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).' 'Whether the Supreme Court proceedings and the Family Court parenting proceedings were related or closely related for the purposes of cross-vesting.' "Whether the defendant's cross-claim under s 117 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) made the Family Court the more appropriate forum." 'Whether the interests of justice supported a Cross-Vesting Order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interests of justice did not support transferring the proceedings to the Family Court. Although the Supreme Court proceedings and Family Court parenting proceedings were related, they were not closely related. The controversy had a more real and substantial connection with the Supreme Court of New South Wales because the principal dispute concerned property and maintenance remedies under de facto relationships legislation. The parenting dispute appeared ancillary and modest, and the s 117 child support claim was only a minor and undeveloped part of the controversy.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion of 29 March 1999 is dismissed with costs.']