OHM -v- ZSH [2026] WASC 227

[2026] WASC 227 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL CITATION : OHM -v- ZSH [No 2] [2026] WASC 227 CORAM : HOWARD J HEARD : 2 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 2 JUNE 2026 PUBLISHED : 4 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : COR 10 of 2026 BETWEEN : OHM First Plaintiff ZK Second Plaintiff AND ZSH First Defendant ZGB Second Defendant ZHJ Third Defendant DC 4 Fourth Defendant DC 5 Fifth Defendant DC 6 Sixth Defendant -- 1 of 8 -- [2026] WASC 227 Page 2 DC 7 Seventh Defendant DC 8 Eighth Defendant DC 9 Ninth Defendant DC 10 Tenth Defendant DC 11 Eleventh Defendant DC 12 Twelfth Defendant DC 13 Thirteenth Defendant DC 14 Fourteenth Defendant DC 15 Fifteenth Defendant Catchwords: Practice and procedure - Jurisdiction - Application under s 1337H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to transfer proceedings to the Family Court of Western Australia - Whether transfer of proceedings in the interest of justice - Application granted Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) -- 2 of 8 -- [2026] WASC 227 Page 3 Result: Application granted Category: B Representation: Counsel: First Plaintiff : Mr G R Donaldson SC & Mr P H Murray Second Plaintiff : Ms Y C Fang First Defendant : Mr M Kearney SC & Mr B Tomasi Second Defendant : Mr P D Evans Third Defendant : Mr P D Evans Fourth Defendant : No appearance Fifth Defendant : No appearance Sixth Defendant : No appearance Seventh Defendant : No appearance Eighth Defendant : No appearance Ninth Defendant : No appearance Tenth Defendant : No appearance Eleventh Defendant : No appearance Twelfth Defendant : No appearance Thirteenth Defendant : No appearance Fourteenth Defendant : No appearance Fifteenth Defendant : No appearance Solicitors: First Plaintiff : Lemonis & Tantiprasut Lawyers Second Plaintiff : Thomson Geer First Defendant : Mallesons Second Defendant : HFW Australia Third Defendant : HFW Australia Fourth Defendant : No appearance Fifth Defendant : No appearance Sixth Defendant : No appearance Seventh Defendant : No appearance Eighth Defendant : No appearance Ninth Defendant : No appearance -- 3 of 8 -- [2026] WASC 227 Page 4 Tenth Defendant : No appearance Eleventh Defendant : No appearance Twelfth Defendant : No appearance Thirteenth Defendant : No appearance Fourteenth Defendant : No appearance Fifteenth Defendant : No appearance Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711 BHP Billiton v Schultz [2004] HCA 61; (2004) 221 CLR 400 OHM v ZSH [2026] WASC 52 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55; (1990) 171 CLR 538 -- 4 of 8 -- [2026] WASC 227 HOWARD J Page 5 HOWARD J: (This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 2 June 2026 and has been lightly edited from the transcript). Background 1 On 25 February 2026, I delivered ex tempore reasons in this matter. Those reasons were published in OHM v ZSH [2026] WASC 52 on 27 February 2026 (first reasons). These reasons should be understood with the benefit of the first reasons. 2 I will refer throughout these reasons to the action in this Court as the Oppression Action, and note that it was brought by OHM as the first plaintiff and her son, ZK as the second plaintiff. 3 Currently, and with respect appropriately, the plaintiffs are separately represented, and are differently represented from when the Oppression Action was first agitated before me. 4 By chamber summons filed on 15 May 2026, the first plaintiff seeks transfer of the Oppression Action to the Family Court of Western Australia (transfer application). 5 The first plaintiff has now clarified that her transfer application is brought pursuant to s 1337H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act). It is not put in issue that the Family Court of Western Australia has jurisdiction to hear the Oppression Action under s 1337C(2) of the Act. 6 The principles on a transfer application between superior courts in this country, on the basis of the interests of justice, are well known, whether under the relevant cross-vesting legislation or under the Act. In saying that, I am mindful that s 1337H(2) uses 'may', rather than 'must', as is the case in the relevant cross-vesting legislation. 7 The plurality of the High Court in BHP Billiton v Schultz,1 endorsed at [13] the observations of Street CJ from Bankinvest AG v Seabrook,2 that what is called for is a 'nuts and bolts' management decision as to which court, in the pursuit of the interests of justice, is the more appropriate to hear and determine the substantive dispute. 1 BHP Billiton v Schultz [2004] HCA 61; (2004) 221 CLR 400 (Gleeson CJ, McHugh & Heydon JJ. 2 Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711. -- 5 of 8 -- [2026] WASC 227 HOWARD J Page 6 8 That description is in line with the observations, in turn, of the plurality in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd,3 particularly at page 565. 9 I note that counsel admirably kept to that Court's suggestion that oral submissions should be 'measured in minutes rather than hours'.4 I intend to hold also to the Court's observations in Voth that it will ordinarily be unnecessary for the primary judge to deliver detailed reasons. 10 There are currently two sets of proceedings, namely the Oppression Action and the proceedings in the Family Court of Western Australia. That will remain the case whether the matter is transferred or not. 11 Both sets of proceedings are at a very early stage, and I think that leads to some permissible or reasonable speculation on my part as to the roads ahead in both proceedings, when making the 'nuts and bolts management decision' mentioned above. 12 The Oppression Action currently, by the originating process filed on 4 February 2026, does not yet seek any orders normally sought under s 233 of the Act. That is, there is no order sought for the winding up of any of the corporate defendants, nor the compulsory purchase of shares in them. No doubt that will be a matter on which attention is focused, and it seems to me both permissible and reasonable to consider that such relief will be sought before too long. 13 Currently, also, the originating process in the Oppression Action does not grapple with the complexities that a number of the companies named are trustee or appoint or companies in relation to trust relationships through which substantial assets are held. 14 It is entirely predictable, in my view, that those matters will be pursued in the Oppression Application and are part of the 'nuts and bolts' decision to be made. 15 These and other questions in the Oppression Action will be determined and progressed in this Court, as I see it, with a keen eye to what is occurring in the Family Court of Western Australia. No doubt 3 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55; (1990) 171 CLR 538 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson & Gaudron JJ) (Voth). While this case concerned a forum non-conveniens application, the plurality's observations are relevant here. 4 Voth 565. -- 6 of 8 -- [2026] WASC 227 HOWARD J Page 7 this Court will be fully assisted by the common parties to the Family Court proceedings: namely, the first defendant and the first plaintiff, who are husband and wife. 16 The respondents to the transfer application say the transfer will result in delays in the determination of the Oppression Action because of delays in the Family Court of Western Australia, and will put parties such as the second plaintiff and the second and third defendants into the Family Court of Western Australia where they would not have otherwise been. 17 The thrust of those submissions was to the effect that such parties do not belong in the Family Court of Western Australia. I note that no submissions were made on behalf of any of the corporate defendants, who remain unrepresented in the Oppression Action. 18 These are put as the principal reasons the transfer application should not be granted, as I understand it. The respondents further submit that there will be no benefits to the grant of the transfer application. 19 Those submissions, it seems to me, pass quickly over the fact that the parties to the Oppression Action, upon transfer, do not become part of the ongoing matrimonial proceedings in the Family Court but, rather, remain parties to an Oppression Action, albeit one which would be heard in the Family Court of Western Australia. 20 It may be that the first plaintiff's interests do not favour a continuation of the Oppression Action, because it gains her nothing over and above the Family Court proceedings, and that she is moved to discontinue it. 21 It may also be that the second plaintiff's conduct in commencing the Oppression Action was an abuse and should be restrained. 22 Such matters remain equally able to be agitated no matter which court the Oppression Action is heard in. 23 The respondents take a fairly narrow or technical view of what is or is likely to be in dispute or in contention in the Oppression Action. 24 The respondents then, from there, make the submission that there is no overlap, and that the Oppression Action can be heard and determined more quickly in this Court. -- 7 of 8 -- [2026] WASC 227 HOWARD J Page 8 25 In my view, where assets have been allegedly controlled by the first defendant and/or the first plaintiff and those assets are held by or through corporate defendants and trust relationships which are the subject of the Oppression Action, there is a real and appreciable risk of overlap. 26 That is particularly when one considers the thoroughly predictable and likely event that final orders sought in the Oppression Action will be of the kind that I mentioned above. 27 It seems most unlikely that the Oppression Action, if it proceeds, could be determined without careful analysis of the Family Court proceedings. 28 Indeed, it seems a very real possibility the final relief in the oppression action would have to await, in whole or in part, the determination of the Family Court proceedings. 29 While this Court may hear and determine a discrete Oppression Action well before the Family Court of Western Australia, this very real prospect reduces very considerably the force in the submission that the transfer will cause delay. In my view, the two actions should be dealt with in the same court. 30 On that basis, I consider the transfer application should be granted. I will make orders in terms of the first plaintiff's chamber summons, as amended by counsel orally today. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. IF Associate to the Hon Justice Howard 4 JUNE 2026 -- 8 of 8 --