AgriWealth Capital Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited

The appeal in AgriWealth Capital Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited involved the jurisdiction of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) to resolve a complaint lodged by Mr Kirby, an investor in certain forestry investment schemes. AFCA determined that part of Mr Kirby’s complaint fell within its jurisdiction, a decision contested by AgriWealth Capital Limited (ACL) and Australian Forestry Management (AFM). The primary judge had previously dismissed ACL and AFM's challenge to AFCA's jurisdiction, a ruling now under appeal by the appellants. The Federal Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 1337B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether AFCA had the jurisdiction to hear and resolve part of Mr Kirby’s complaint. This hinged on the interpretation of the AFCA Rules and the contract formed between AFCA, its members, and complainants. Specifically, the Court had to determine if Mr Kirby's claims about certain fees and charges were within the scope of AFCA’s jurisdiction as defined in the AFCA Rules. The appellants argued that these claims fell outside AFCA’s jurisdiction, while the respondents maintained that they were within its purview.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court held that Mr Kirby’s claims about the fees and charges were indeed within AFCA’s jurisdiction under the relevant rules. The Court confirmed that the AFCA Rules, which form a binding contract between AFCA, its members, and complainants, clearly outlined the scope of AFCA’s authority. The Court emphasised that the proper construction of this contract determined AFCA’s jurisdiction. Given that the primary judge had correctly interpreted the rules and applied them to find that part of Mr Kirby’s complaint was within AFCA’s jurisdiction, the appeal was dismissed. The Court also ordered that the appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.