Gao v Perry

The proceedings concerned a dispute between former de facto partners, Gao and Perry, regarding the ownership of property. The primary claim was brought in equity, with an alternative claim made under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The primary judge upheld the claims in equity and made contingent findings under the *Family Law Act*. Perry appealed, but the appeal was confined to challenging the orders based in equity. Gao, as the respondent, filed a notice of contention based on the *Family Law Act* contingent findings. The matter came before the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether an appeal lay to the Court of Appeal in these circumstances, and if an appeal was properly instituted in the Court of Appeal, whether the notice of contention necessitated its transfer to the Family Court of Australia. These questions required the construction and application of section 7 of the *Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987* (Cth), which prohibits the institution and determination of certain appeals in the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal considered the operation of section 7 of the *Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987* (Cth). It determined that the appeal, as framed by the parties, fell within the scope of the prohibition. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appeal should not have been instituted in the Court of Appeal and that the notice of contention, by raising matters under the *Family Law Act*, further mandated a transfer to the Family Court.

The Court ordered that the proceeding be transferred to the Family Court of Australia. The notice of motion filed on 4 December 2020 was otherwise dismissed.