WENTWORTH and Hamilton & Anor

The Family Court of Australia heard proceedings between Mr Wentworth (Applicant) and Mr Hamilton (First Respondent), concerning property division following the breakdown of their de facto relationship. L Law Firm (Second Respondent) was also involved. The core dispute initially revolved around the validity of a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA) entered into by the parties. Mr Wentworth sought a declaration that the BFA was not binding, while Mr Hamilton initially sought to uphold its validity, later amending his response to claim damages against L Law Firm for negligence.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Family Court should exercise its accrued jurisdiction to hear the negligence claim against L Law Firm, and consequently, whether L Law Firm should be removed as a party. A significant preliminary issue was the determination of the BFA's binding nature, which the parties later agreed by consent was not binding. This agreement resolved the initial dispute regarding the BFA's enforceability, paving the way for property division under section 90SM of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The Court considered the principles of accrued jurisdiction, referencing High Court decisions such as *Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally* and *Fencott v Muller*, which establish that federal courts can hear non-federal claims if they form part of a single justiciable controversy with a federal claim. However, the Court found that the negligence claim against L Law Firm was not part of a single justiciable controversy with the property adjustment proceedings. The Court reasoned that the determination of the property settlement under section 90SM was a separate and distinct issue from the negligence claim, and the latter would only arise and be quantifiable after the former was resolved. Therefore, the Court concluded that the negligence claim did not attract accrued jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the Second Respondent, L Law Firm, be removed as a party to the proceedings. The substantive property adjustment proceedings between Mr Wentworth and Mr Hamilton would continue, but without the negligence claim against the law firm being heard within this jurisdiction.