Legal Research
Cases
Liu v Jia

Liu v Jia

Case [2025] NSWSC 1218 17 October 2025

Jurisdiction

Transfer of Proceedings

Interests of Justice

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Liu v Jia [2025] NSWSC 1218
Hearing dates: 10 October 2025
Date of orders: 17 October 2025
Decision date: 17 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List
Before: McGrath J
Decision:
Transfer of the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Cross-vesting – Transfer to Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – whether this court has jurisdiction to order the transfer – whether it is in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings – balancing the interests of justice – HELD – proceedings transferred

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 57, 58
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 79, 79AA, 90SM, 90SMA
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2021 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), ss 8, 51
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 5
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW), s 5
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 (NSW), sch 2.32
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), r 9.02
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 17.3

Cases Cited:
Aspinall v Acqua Sports Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 706
BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400; [2004] HCA 61
Chan v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1439
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503; [2012] HCA 55
Mendonca v Dooley & Associates Solicitors Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 144
Miric v Romanous [2021] NSWSC 805
Nicita v Nicita [2025] NSWSC 585
Pascoe atf the Bankrupt Estates of Peter Voukidis (deceased) and Kathy Voukidis v Voukidis [2025] NSWSC 398
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460
Sultan v Dabboussi [2024] NSWSC 683
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34
Valceski v Valceski (2007) NSWLR 36; [2007] NSWSC 440
Xue v Xue [2020] NSWSC 501
Yu v Wang [2021] NSWSC 1280
Zhang v Levingson [2023] NSWSC 1559

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Jian Liu (Applicant)
Songqing Liu (Respondent/Plaintiff)
TingTing Jia (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Hartwell SC (Applicant)
D Barlin (Respondent/Plaintiff)
X Wang (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Tang Lawyers Australia (Applicant)
Rostron Carlyle Rojas Lawyers (Respondent/Plaintiff)
WG Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/00241511
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

In these proceedings, Jian Liu has applied by notice of motion filed 20 August 2025 for orders that:

he be joined as a party to these proceedings; and

these proceedings be transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia pursuant to s 5(1)(b)(ii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) (NSW Cross-Vesting Act); or

by way of alternative, that these proceedings be stayed.

For the reasons set out below, I have determined that:

Mr Liu is to be joined as the second defendant to these proceedings.

It is in the interests of justice to transfer these proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court…

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 Liu v Jia

Details

AGLC: Liu v Jia [2025] NSWSC 1218
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1218
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Liu v Jia involves a dispute between the parties regarding an alleged breach of contract. The matter was initially brought before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia but was subsequently transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Circuit Court had the jurisdiction to order the transfer of the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court and whether it was in the interests of justice to make such a transfer. The court was required to balance the interests of justice, taking into account factors such as the complexity of the case, the need for efficiency, and the convenience of the parties.

The court considered the legislative framework governing the transfer of proceedings between the two courts, noting that the Federal Circuit Court has the power to order a transfer under section 54 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1995. The court also examined the criteria for determining whether a transfer is in the interests of justice, which includes the need to ensure that the proceedings are dealt with efficiently and effectively. The court found that the case involved complex issues of contract law and that the Federal Circuit and Family Court had the necessary expertise to handle the matter. The court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court, given the complexity of the issues and the need for efficient resolution.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of balancing the interests of justice in determining whether to order a transfer. The court noted that while the interests of justice must be the paramount consideration, other factors such as the convenience of the parties and the need for efficiency must also be taken into account. The court found that the transfer was in the best interests of all parties involved, given the complexity of the case and the expertise of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. The court therefore ordered that the proceedings be transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court, where they will continue to be heard and determined.

No specific orders regarding costs or further directions were mentioned in the text provided.

Orders