Helen Lasscock v Peter Ivan Macks: No. SCGRG 96/1986 Judgment No. 6068 Number of Pages 6 Family Law Jurisdiction Cross-vesting

The case involves an application by the defendant, Peter Ivan Macks, to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court of Australia. The application was filed under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987. The central dispute revolves around the validity of a mortgage entered into as part of a family law property settlement between the defendant and her former husband, Ian McArthur Lasscock. The defendant is also the receiver and manager of property for Lasscocks, which was placed in voluntary administration. The plaintiff, Helen Lasscock, seeks to enforce a Family Court order requiring the transfer of property to the defendant due to the former husband's failure to make maintenance payments.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there were pending proceedings in the Family Court related to the current action and, if so, whether it was more appropriate for those proceedings to be determined by the Family Court. The defendant argued that the Family Court should handle the matter as it would need to determine the validity and effect of the orders made on 12 March 1993 and 24 July 1996, which would impact the issues in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff countered that the Family Court proceedings had been completed, and the only issue remaining was the validity of the mortgage, a matter that the Supreme Court could handle more appropriately and expeditiously.

The court examined the criteria for transferring proceedings under the Cross-vesting Act and the Family Law Act. It noted that while the Family Court had made orders related to the mortgage, the determination of the mortgage's validity was a discrete matter. The court found that the Family Court proceedings were not pending as required by the Act. Furthermore, it concluded that the issue of the mortgage's validity was more appropriately dealt with in the Supreme Court as it would avoid involving the plaintiff in wider, potentially protracted and costly, disputes between the defendant and her former husband.

In summary, the court dismissed the application to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court. The reasoning was that the issue of the mortgage's validity was a distinct matter that could be efficiently resolved in the Supreme Court without unnecessarily involving the plaintiff in other Family Court actions. The court determined that the Family Court was not seized of any pending proceedings that required it to address the validity of the mortgage.