Lin v One Funds Management Limited [2021] NSWSC 1450

Lin v One Funds Management Limited [2021] NSWSC 1450

The Court was not satisfied that the Federal Court was the more appropriate forum. Although some overlap existed with related proceedings, the dispute was governed by NSW law, concerned parties based in NSW, and transfer would disadvantage the plaintiff without sufficient case management benefits or real risk of inconsistent judgments. Thus, transfer was not in the interests of justice.

Parties
Plaintiff: Enying Lin; First Defendant: One Funds Management Limited; Second Defendant: Frank John Tearle; Third Defendant: Justin Kurt Epstein; Fourth Defendant: Elizabeth Reddy; Fifth Defendant: Sara Wiesener
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Notice of Motion to Transfer Proceedings—decision
Outcome
Defendants' amended notice of motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Cross Vesting, Forum Non Conveniens, Case Management
Civil Procedure Equity Jurisdiction Cross Vesting Forum Non Conveniens Case Management

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enying Lin

Plaintiff

One Funds Management Limited

First Defendant

Frank John Tearle

Second Defendant

Justin Kurt Epstein

Third Defendant

Elizabeth Reddy

Fourth Defendant

Sara Wiesener

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Notice of Motion to Transfer Proceedings—decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia (Victoria Registry) under s 5(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether it is in the interests of justice to transfer the proceeding
  3. 3 Possible duplication and inconsistency with related Federal Court proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that the Federal Court was the more appropriate forum. Although some overlap existed with related proceedings, the dispute was governed by NSW law, concerned parties based in NSW, and transfer would disadvantage the plaintiff without sufficient case management benefits or real risk of inconsistent judgments. Thus, transfer was not in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Defendants' amended notice of motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The defendants' amended notice of motion filed on 7 September 2021 is dismissed with costs.
  • The matter is listed for directions on 19 November 2021.