Berglund & Ungureanu - [2025] FedCFamC1F 666

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Berglund & Ungureanu [2025] FedCFamC1F 666

File number(s): PAC 400 of 2025

Judgment of: RIETHMULLER J

Date of judgment: 24 September 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – Cross vesting proceedings to the Supreme Court of NSW – Proceedings pending in the Supreme Court against husband and wife for recovery of misappropriated funds prior to commencement of family law proceedings – Supreme Court injunction restraining husband from dealing with property – Dispute between wife and creditors in property settlement proceedings – Parties consenting to transfer – Application granted

Legislation:
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)

Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) s 97

Cases cited:
B Pty Ltd v Ungureanu [2025] NSWSC …

Hickey & Hickey and the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-147; [2003] FamCA 395

Valceski v Valceski (2007) 70 NSWLR 36; [2007] NSWSC 440

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 22

Date of hearing: 15 August 2025

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Shaw

Solicitor for the Applicant: Sydney Metropolitan Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent appeared in person.

Counsel for the Intervener: Ms Mann

Solicitor for the Intervener: Bartier Perry Lawyers

ORDERS

PAC 400 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS BERGLUND

Applicant

AND:
MR UNGUREANU

Respondent

B PTY LTD

Intervener

ORDER MADE BY:

RIETHMULLER J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 the proceedings be transferred to Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sydney Registry.
2.The costs of the application in a case to transfer the proceedings be reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RIETHMULLER J

The intervener, B Pty Ltd, filed an application in the proceedings, seeking orders pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) for the proceedings to be transferred to the Supreme Court of NSW to be heard with proceedings between the parties (and an additional party) that are pending in the Supreme Court (file number …).
The proceedings pending…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Berglund & Ungureanu

Details

AGLC: Berglund & Ungureanu [2025] FedCFamC1F 666
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 666
Decision Date: 24 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Ms Berglund applied for an order to transfer family law proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Ms Berglund and Mr Ungureanu were married and had been involved in family law proceedings concerning their property settlement. Concurrently, the husband was a party to proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning the recovery of misappropriated funds. A Supreme Court injunction had been issued restraining the husband from dealing with certain property. The dispute between Ms Berglund and the creditors of Mr Ungureanu arose in the context of the family law property settlement proceedings. Both parties consented to the transfer of the family law proceedings to the Supreme Court.

The legal issue before the court was whether the family law proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987. The court considered the consent of the parties and the overlap between the family law proceedings and the Supreme Court proceedings concerning the misappropriated funds. The court also considered the existence of the Supreme Court injunction. Riethmuller J concluded that the family law proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court due to the consent of the parties and the interconnected nature of the proceedings.

The court granted the application to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sydney Registry. The costs of the application were reserved. The court emphasised the importance of the consent of both parties in making the decision to transfer the proceedings. The order was made pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987, allowing for the transfer of proceedings between courts to ensure efficiency and consistency in the resolution of related legal matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

PAC 400 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS BERGLUND

Applicant

AND:

MR UNGUREANU

Respondent

B PTY LTD

Intervener

ORDER MADE BY:

RIETHMULLER J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 the proceedings be transferred to Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sydney Registry.

2. The costs of the application in a case to transfer the proceedings be reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	PAC 400 of 2025
Judgment of:	RIETHMULLER J
Date of judgment:	24 September 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – Cross vesting proceedings to the Supreme Court of NSW – Proceedings pending in the Supreme Court against husband and wife for recovery of misappropriated funds prior to commencement of family law proceedings – Supreme Court injunction restraining husband from dealing with property – Dispute between wife and creditors in property settlement proceedings – Parties consenting to transfer – Application granted
Legislation:	Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) s 97
Cases cited:	B Pty Ltd v Ungureanu [2025] NSWSC … Hickey & Hickey and the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-147; [2003] FamCA 395 Valceski v Valceski (2007) 70 NSWLR 36; [2007] NSWSC 440
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	22
Date of hearing:	15 August 2025
Place:	Parramatta
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Shaw
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Sydney Metropolitan Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	The Respondent appeared in person.
Counsel for the Intervener:	Ms Mann
Solicitor for the Intervener:	Bartier Perry Lawyers

PAC 400 of 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS BERGLUND Applicant
AND:	MR UNGUREANU Respondent
B PTY LTD Intervener

ORDER MADE BY:	RIETHMULLER J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 SEPTEMBER 2025