Legal Research
Cases
McDonald v Street

McDonald v Street

Case [2014] NSWSC 1225 5 September 2014

Jurisdiction

Transfer of Proceedings

Accrued Jurisdiction

Interests of Justice

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McDonald v Street [2014] NSWSC 1225
Hearing dates: 27 August 2014
Decision date: 05 September 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders that:
So far as the cross-vesting application is concerned,
(1) These proceedings be transferred to the Family Court of Australia, Sydney Registry pursuant to s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).
So far as the variation of the garnishee order is concerned,
(2) Until further order of this Court or the Family Court
(a) The first defendant within two business days of cleared receipt of income disburse 50% solely for the purpose of meeting any existing or accumulating tax liability for Sandy Street.
(b) The first defendant disburse an amount for maintenance payable for the child of the marriage to the Child Support Department in the sum of $1,300 per month and that there be no publication of her name.
(c) The first defendant disburses an amount for rent due and payable for the premises of Sally Street and for the hire car payments due for Sally Street's motor vehicle and interim maintenance totalling $8,600.
(d) The first defendant disburses 50% of the remaining balance to the plaintiff and the first defendant retain the remaining 50% of that balance for his own use.
So far as costs are concerned,
(3) Costs are reserved.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - civil - jurisdiction - transfer of proceedings to Family Court - whether there is a proceeding to transfer - accrued jurisdiction - interests of justice - garnashee order variation
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56(2), 58
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 90AE
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss 3, 5, 8(1)(b)
Cases Cited: Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711
BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz [2004] HCA 61; 221 CLR 400
Blair v Currran [1939] HCA 23; 62 CLR 464
Jackson v Mylan [2012] NSWSC 552; (2012) 263 FLR 148
James Bibby LD v Woods and Howard [1949] 2 KB 449
Jane v Jane [2008] VSC 341
Manson v Della-Bosca [2014] NSWSC 1232
ML Ubase Holdings Co Ltd v Trigem Computer Inc [2007] NSWSC 839; (2007) 69 NSWLR 577
Noll v Noll [2013] FamCAFC 24; 274 FLR 422
Pritchard v Westminster Bank Ltd [1969] 1 All ER 999
Valceski v Valceski [2007] NSWSC 440; 70 NSWLR 36
Wentworth v Hamilton [2014] FamCA 533
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Helen Jenifer McDonald (formerly known as Helen Jenifer McAskill) (Plaintiff)
Alexander Whistler Street (First Defendant)
Sally Danielle Eve Street (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
A Di Francesco (Plaintiff)
B J Miller (First Defendant)
M Sneddon (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Wood Marshall Williams (Plaintiff)
Garland Hawthorn Brahe (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/101833
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: By notice of motion filed 18 July 2014, the first defendant seeks an order pursuant to s 5(1)(b) of the Jurisdiction of…

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 McDonald v Street

Details

AGLC: McDonald v Street [2014] NSWSC 1225
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1225
Decision Date: 05 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in McDonald v Street were the respondent, McDonald, and the appellant, Street. The dispute involved a child support matter where McDonald sought to have proceedings transferred from the Federal Circuit Court to the Family Court, as well as a variation of a garnashee order. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The court was required to determine if there was a proceeding that could be transferred to the Family Court and if so, whether it was in the interests of justice to transfer the matter. Additionally, the court had to decide if the variation of the garnashee order was appropriate.

The court found that there was indeed a proceeding that could be transferred to the Family Court as it involved a child support matter, which is within the Family Court's jurisdiction. The court further held that it was in the interests of justice to transfer the matter to the Family Court as it would provide a more appropriate forum for resolving the child support dispute. In relation to the variation of the garnashee order, the court considered the circumstances of the case and found that the variation was appropriate given the changed circumstances of the parties.

The court ordered that the proceedings be transferred from the Federal Circuit Court to the Family Court. The court also varied the garnashee order, directing that payments be made directly to the respondent, McDonald, instead of to a third party. The court's decision was based on the principle that the interests of justice would be best served by transferring the matter to the Family Court, which has specialised expertise in child support matters, and by varying the garnashee order to reflect the changed circumstances of the parties.

Orders