LL and Anor & MR and Anor

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard an application for leave to appeal interlocutory orders made by O’Ryan J. The applicants, LL and PK Pty Ltd, sought leave to appeal orders dismissing their application to intervene in property settlement proceedings between CR and MR, and refusing their application for various declarations and orders. LL is the daughter of CR, and PK Pty Ltd is a company with origins tracing back to a company formerly directed and held by CR and her first husband, JL. The applicants sought to prosecute applications under section 1337C of the Corporations Act 2001 and the accrued jurisdiction of the Family Court, alleging that CR had breached her duties as a director of PK Pty Ltd and as a trustee, which they contended would diminish the property available for the CR and MR settlement proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge erred in holding that the appellants' claims did not fall within the accrued jurisdiction of the Family Court, and whether the trial judge erred in declining to exercise his powers under the Corporations Act 2001. Specifically, the court considered whether the trial judge correctly identified the claims presented to him, whether his awareness of transitional provisions affected the general principles of appellate review, and whether it was necessary for him to determine the availability of relief under section 1324(10) of the Corporations Act. The court also examined whether the trial judge erred in making subsequent orders without notice to the appellants, thereby denying them natural justice, and whether he erred in ordering one of the appellants to pay the husband's costs.

The Full Court reasoned that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellants' claims did not fall within the accrued jurisdiction was sound, particularly as the appellants did not suggest these claims could be maintained independently of their Corporations Act claims. Regarding the Corporations Act claims, the court found no error in the trial judge's assessment that the case presented to him was not specifically pleaded under section 124 of the Companies Act 1961 (NSW). Furthermore, the court noted that even if the trial judge had erred on the jurisdiction or Corporations Act grounds, he indicated he would have transferred the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales pursuant to section 1337J of the Corporations Act, a decision the Full Court found was not outside the reasonable ambit of his discretion. The court also found no merit in the grounds of appeal concerning the subsequent orders, as there was no evidence that the appellants sought a stay or relisting of the matter, and the costs order was based on the appellants' lack of success.

Consequently, the Full Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error by the trial judge in his determination of the jurisdiction issues and that the tests for granting leave were not satisfied.