D’Angola Services Pty Ltd v Li Li [2024] NSWSC 1628

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: D'Angola Services Pty Ltd v Li Li [2024] NSWSC 1628 Hearing dates: 13 December 2024 Date of orders: 13 December 2024 Decision date: 13 December 2024 Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List Before: Kunc J Decision: Amended notice of motion dismissed; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Cross-vesting — Transfer to Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia or Federal Court of Australia — Defendant seeks to file cross-claim for relief under Fair Work legislation for which Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction Category: Procedural rulings Parties: D'Angola Services Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Li Li (First Defendant) Brighton Investment Group Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: EA Hyde (Plaintiff) A Galbraith (First and Second Defendants)

Solicitors: Paradise Charnock Hing (Plaintiff) Jemmeson & Fisher (First and Second Defendants) File Number(s): 2024/00346349

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

Summary 1. The plaintiff, D'Angola Services Pty Ltd, employed (using that term in its most general and non-technical sense) the first defendant through the second defendant. D'Angola has commenced proceedings in this Court solely limited to claims based upon the equitable obligation of confidence, which D'Angola says the defendants have breached. Those proceedings are procedurally well advanced. 2. The defendants wish to file a cross‑claim which relates solely to allegations made, and relief to which the first defendant cross‑claimant is said to be entitled, under the Fair Work legislation. On no view can it be said that the proposed cross‑claim impugns in a practical or legal sense D'Angola's claim based upon the equitable obligation of confidence. 3. By amended notice of motion, leave having been granted for the amendment today, the defendants seek to have these proceedings transferred either to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, or the Federal Court of Australia or, alternatively, to the District Court. There is no dispute that any of those courts has jurisdiction to hear the matters raised by the cross‑claim. There is also no dispute that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear those matters. 4. The defendants were subject to orders that any cross‑claim be filed in the first instance by 4 November 2024, and then by extension to 11 November 2024. No cross‑claim was filed. Therefore, without any criticism of the defendants, the fact of the matter is that leave is required to file the cross‑claim. For the reasons which follow, that leave will not be granted and the amended notice of motion will be dismissed.