by Our Correspondent in Sydney
A legal dispute originating in Australia has triggered growing concern among members of the Sri Lankan diaspora, who allege that court orders issued in family law proceedings have affected ownership and legal rights over residential properties located in Sri Lanka without the knowledge or participation of all affected parties.
The controversy centres on proceedings in the Australian Federal Circuit and Family Court in 2023, where, according to documents and accounts shared by Sri Lankans living in Australia, orders were issued that directed the transfer of ownership involving multiple Sri Lankan properties held within one extended family. Those raising concerns claim the orders went beyond determining the financial interests of parties before the Australian court by altering legal arrangements relating to land governed by Sri Lankan law.
According to accounts provided by affected individuals, the properties involved were ancestral residential holdings in Colombo that had previously been transferred by a Sri Lankan-born Australian woman to her two adult children through gifts recognised under Sri Lankan law. They allege that the Australian court subsequently treated those properties as a single asset connected to both parents and ordered that ownership be transferred to the woman’s husband.
Those challenging the orders argue that such a transfer would require the revocation of completed gifts under Sri Lankan law, something they contend cannot legally occur. They further claim that the court indicated it could execute documents on behalf of the property owner should she decline to sign them herself. The couple at the centre of the dispute are described by supporters as elderly and in frail health.
The case has attracted attention within sections of the Sri Lankan diaspora because of broader concerns over jurisdiction. Those following the proceedings argue that no treaty exists permitting Australian courts to determine ownership of privately held residential land located in Sri Lanka. They contend that any changes to ownership or legal rights concerning such property should fall exclusively under Sri Lankan law and the jurisdiction of Sri Lankan courts.
Those making the allegations also state that several property owners were never notified of the proceedings despite claiming an interest in the affected land. They further allege they were unable to participate in the case, challenge the orders, or pursue appeals after becoming aware of the decisions. According to those involved, some individuals whose property interests were affected remain unaware of the court orders.
Questions have also been raised about the availability of judicial reasons. According to those familiar with the proceedings, the orders were not accompanied by published reasons explaining how the court reached its conclusions. They also state that the orders themselves have not been publicly released, which they say has made it more difficult for affected parties to understand or challenge the decisions.
The dispute extends beyond Sri Lankan property. Individuals involved in the matter allege that an Australian property owned by the elderly parents became entangled with the Sri Lankan assets during the proceedings. They claim the Australian property was ordered to be sold, with proceeds directed into the trust account of an Australian lawyer, and that the owners only became aware of the completed sale months later.
Supporters of the affected family say they sought relief through Australia’s legal system after the 2023 ruling. Applications were reportedly lodged with the High Court of Australia, arguing that the orders breached international legal protections relating to property rights and affected the rights of dual citizens. They state that submissions included opinions from Sri Lankan legal practitioners explaining the operation of Sri Lankan property law. According to those involved, the High Court declined to hear the matter.
Since then, those following the dispute say they have contacted a range of Australian government institutions seeking clarification or intervention. They state that correspondence has been sent to the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, the Attorney-General, the Foreign Minister, and senior judicial officers. According to those raising the issue, they have not received responses addressing their central concerns regarding jurisdiction or the legal basis of the orders.
The matter was also referred to the Australian Federal Police, supporters of the family say, but they were informed that the dispute was civil rather than criminal in nature. They claim documents offered to investigators were not accepted. Local parliamentary representatives were also approached, according to those involved, who say they were advised that broader judicial oversight mechanisms would be required before complaints concerning judicial conduct could be examined.
Representations have also reportedly been made to Sri Lankan authorities. Members of the diaspora say requests were submitted to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in Australia seeking meetings on the issue, while correspondence was also directed to Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister and Attorney General. According to those making the requests, they have not received substantive responses.
The legal battle has continued through additional proceedings in Australia, according to individuals following the case. They claim one court acknowledged that the original 2023 orders were unjust but nevertheless allowed property transactions arising from those orders to proceed. In another proceeding, they allege that attempts to halt further transfers were unsuccessful despite submissions referring to alleged violations of legal rights and raising concerns about possible criminal activity, including money laundering.
During those proceedings, affected individuals say they were advised that compensation might instead be pursued through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. They contend, however, that the authority informed them it does not deal with disputes involving overseas property and could not compensate for losses relating to land situated outside Australia.
The dispute has also prompted wider concerns among some members of the Sri Lankan diaspora about cross-border property security. Those following the case point to publicly available estimates from Australia’s Criminal Intelligence Commission regarding the scale of fraud and money laundering within the Australian property sector, arguing that stronger safeguards are needed where international assets and overseas property rights may be affected.
Those making the allegations say they fear the dispute could have broader implications for Sri Lankans living abroad who own family property in their country of origin. They argue that unless questions surrounding jurisdiction, notification of affected parties, and recognition of foreign property laws are clarified, confidence in the protection of cross-border property rights will remain uncertain.
