ANZ v Ebsworth

The ANZ Bank Limited (ANZ) sought to have the proceedings for the possession of certain properties transferred to the Family Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondents to the proceedings in the Supreme Court were the first defendant, who was the owner of the properties, and the second defendant, who was the first defendant's sister. The second defendant had commenced proceedings in the Family Court to set aside a Binding Financial Agreement entered into under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to hear the proceedings, given that the proceedings in the Family Court involved a different set of parties, transactions, and properties to those in the Supreme Court proceedings. The court also needed to determine whether there was only one justiciable controversy and whether there was a common substratum of facts in the two sets of proceedings.

The court found that the two proceedings involved two separate controversies. The Supreme Court proceedings involved different parties, transactions, and properties to the Family Court proceedings. The property securing certain of the loan facilities in respect of which ANZ sought an order for possession was not property of the de facto partners but was property of the first defendant, sister to the second defendant. The court held that the Family Court did not have accrued jurisdiction to hear the possession dispute involving multiple third parties to the Family Court proceedings. It was not in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court.

The court dismissed the application to have the proceedings transferred to the Family Court. The court found that it would not be in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings, given the differences between the parties, transactions, and properties involved in the two sets of proceedings. The court held that the two proceedings involved two separate controversies and that there was no common substratum of facts. The court also found that the Family Court did not have accrued jurisdiction to hear the possession dispute involving multiple third parties to the Family Court proceedings. The court dismissed the application for transfer.