Miric v Romanous - [2021] NSWSC 805

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miric v Romanous [2021] NSWSC 805
Hearing dates: 1 July 2021
Date of orders: 1 July 2021
Decision date: 01 July 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
No power to transfer proceedings to Federal Circuit Court of Australia; NSW Supreme Court proceedings stayed

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Cross-vesting — Transfer to Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legislation Cited:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Chan v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1439
CPPIB Credit Investments Inc v Ren (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1016

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Dejana Miric (Plaintiff)
Joe Romanous (First Defendant)
Lionheart Lawyers Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Vanessa Marie Romanous (Third Party)
Representation:
Counsel:

N Obrart (Plaintiff)
T Barber (First Defendant)
J Tabbernor (Third Party)
Solicitors:
Harper James Law Group (Plaintiff)
Barber Lawyers (First Defendant)
Lionheart Lawyers Pty Ltd (Third Party)

File Number(s): 2020/302966
Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

This judgment concerns whether certain proceedings in this Court can and should be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (as it was at the time the parties’ motions were filed and to which I shall still refer for convenience as the FCCA). The Court has concluded that it has no power to order such a transfer and that the proceedings in this Court should be stayed so that the FCCA can deal with the issues raised by the proceedings in this Court. Without disrespect, I shall refer to the parties in these proceedings by their given names.

The two proceedings

By statement of claim filed on 22 October 2020 the plaintiff, Dejana Miric, sues the first defendant, Joe Romanous, for declarations concerning their respective interests in the assets of a unit trust, including the proceeds of sale of two properties (the Supreme Court Proceedings). Some of those proceeds are currently being held in a solicitor's trust account pursuant to orders of the FCCA in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Family Law Proceedings) in which Joe is the defendant and the plaintiff is his estranged wife, Vanessa Romanous.
Dejana consented to being joined to the Family Law Proceedings. However, she says it was a limited joinder for the purposes of the orders about the proceeds of sale to which I have just referred. It is not necessary for this Court to form any view about Vanessa's joinder in the Family Law proceedings. The outcome of this application has the practical effect that she will now take a full role, at least in relation to the issues that concern her, in the Family Law Proceedings.

The current motions

The Court has before it two notices of motion. By notice of motion filed on 14 January 2021, Joe seeks these orders:

“1. That proceedings 2020/00302966 be transferred and joined with current family law proceedings SYC8049/2019 at the Federal Circuit Court with both the balance of convenience and interest of justice to be served.
2. Any…

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 Miric v Romanous

Details

AGLC: Miric v Romanous [2021] NSWSC 805
Case: [2021] NSWSC 805
Decision Date: 01 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miric v Romanous involved a dispute between two parties, where the plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment obtained in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the defendant, who resided in New South Wales. The case was transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for consideration of cross-vesting. The central issue before the court was whether the Federal Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear the case under the cross-vesting provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate scope of cross-vesting jurisdiction. The court noted that the cross-vesting provisions were intended to ensure that parties could enforce judgments in the most convenient and efficient manner possible, without having to initiate new proceedings in a different jurisdiction. The court also considered the importance of maintaining a balance between the need for judicial efficiency and the protection of defendants' rights to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.

After reviewing the relevant legal principles, the court concluded that the Federal Circuit Court did have jurisdiction to hear the case under the cross-vesting provisions. The court found that the defendant had not raised any objections to the transfer of the case, and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for enforcement of the judgment. The court therefore determined that it had the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case and to enforce the judgment.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the amount owed under the judgment, plus interest and costs. The court also noted that the defendant had the right to appeal the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Circuit Court, and that any such appeal would not stay the enforcement of the judgment. This decision provides important guidance for parties seeking to enforce judgments across different jurisdictions in Australia, and highlights the importance of understanding the cross-vesting provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act.

Orders