Scott & Munayallan (No 11)

In the matter of Scott & Munayallan (No 11), the parties were involved in a dispute that required resolution in the Family Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the Family Court had the jurisdiction to set aside or vary an order entered by another court, in this case, an order made by Sackar J in April 2022. This jurisdictional question arose from the application by Mr Scott to set aside a judgment that had been entered some 325 days prior, well beyond the 14-day limit prescribed by Rule 36.16(3C) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The court was tasked with determining whether the Family Court could entertain such an application despite the clear time limit specified in the rules.

The Family Court, drawing on a previous decision by Black J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, found that the time limit for varying a judgment or order as outlined in Rule 36.16(3C) was indeed non-extendable. Black J had previously held that unless the consent order was set aside, the consent judgment delivered by Sackar J would remain in place and binding on the parties. This previous ruling reinforced the notion that the Family Court's jurisdiction was circumscribed by the specific provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The Family Court further reasoned that while it could exercise its own jurisdiction over issues arising before it, it could not undermine a judgment delivered by another court in respect of the same issues. This reasoning was pivotal in concluding that the Family Court lacked the jurisdiction to set aside the order in question.

In light of the above, the Family Court dismissed Mr Scott's application to set aside the order made by Sackar J. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to jurisdictional boundaries and the limitations set by procedural rules. The court held that the Family Court could not interfere with the judgment of another court in the absence of consent or other exceptional circumstances not present in this case. Consequently, the order made by Sackar J remained in effect, binding the parties to its terms.