Singhal v Finsure Finance & Insurance Pty Ltd

This case came out of a mortgage and finance broking relationship. Ms Singhal had an Introducer Agreement with Finsure, which the judgment describes as an aggregator and the holder of an Australian credit licence under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth). Under that arrangement, she introduced loan applications through Finsure's software system, paid Finsure a monthly fee, and received commissions from lenders for successfully brokered loans. Finsure collected those commissions on her behalf.

The relationship later broke down. In about July 2023, Finsure conducted an audit of loans initiated by Ms Singhal after concerns were raised by ME Bank, a BOQ subsidiary, and National Australia Bank. Finsure staff interviewed her on 15 July 2023, and the audit results and interview notes were recorded in a Broker Incident Report signed on 16 November 2023. BOQ terminated her accreditation on 11 August 2023. Finsure then suspended her access to its system and authority to submit loan applications on 8 November 2023, and terminated the agreement on 28 November 2023.

The dispute also involved money and reputation. The judgment says Finsure withheld certain commissions pending AFCA complaints about Ms Singhal. Those complaints were resolved in or about May 2025, but Finsure continued withholding the commissions while the proceeding remained on foot, saying in its defence that it had an indemnity right under the agreement. After the suspension, Ms Singhal tried to move to another aggregator. Finsure provided reference checks to several aggregators and to AFCA in 2023 and 2024, and Ms Singhal said those communications damaged her reputation and affected her ability to continue in the industry.

The judgment makes clear that the Court had to work through several attempts to identify what Ms Singhal was really alleging. Her original material was described as unclear, and the Court directed the parties to attend a confidential conferral before a registrar to try to agree a list of factual and legal issues that might provide arguable grounds for relief in the Federal Court. There was not full agreement. Ms Singhal later provided an amended list of issues, and at the hearing on 15 December 2025 she confirmed the claims she sought to bring.

Against Finsure, she confirmed three claims. First, she said Finsure's decision to suspend the agreement and withhold commissions was a breach of contract. Second, she alleged that the Broker Incident Report involved a breach of section 1308 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and item 78.63 of ASIC Regulatory Guide 78 because it was misleading and fraudulent. Third, she alleged defamation arising from Finsure sending a reference check to four aggregators.

Against BOQ, she confirmed three proposed claims. First, that BOQ was negligent in terminating her accreditation. Second, that BOQ failed to follow 'protocol' before doing so. Third, that BOQ failed to provide reasons for the termination. The judgment notes that the alleged protocol was not identified as a legal rule. At the hearing, Ms Singhal accepted that it referred to standard banking practices she had observed through her experience.

That level of detail matters because the Court's reasoning turned on the claims as they were actually put, not on every broader complaint that may have existed in the background. This is an important point for business readers. A court does not decide jurisdiction by asking whether a dispute feels serious or whether the parties have a real commercial falling out. It asks what legal controversy has been pleaded and whether that controversy falls within the court's jurisdiction.

The principal issue on Finsure's summary dismissal application was whether Ms Singhal's proceeding properly enlivened the Federal Court's jurisdiction. The judgment states that the Federal Court only has jurisdiction where the Commonwealth Parliament has vested it with that jurisdiction. One important source is section 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which gives the Court original jurisdiction in matters arising under laws made by the Commonwealth Parliament.

The judgment also emphasises a basic but important principle: the first duty of any court is to consider its jurisdiction. That meant the Court had to deal with the gateway issue before any final consideration of the underlying merits. The question was not whether Ms Singhal had suffered commercial harm, whether the agreement had in fact been breached, whether the Broker Incident Report was actually misleading, or whether the references were defamatory. The threshold question came first. Did the claims, properly characterised, amount to a matter arising under Commonwealth law or otherwise within federal jurisdiction?

For business owners, this is the practical lesson. A dispute can involve a licensed business, regulated conduct, references to Commonwealth legislation, and significant financial consequences, but still not belong in the Federal Court. Jurisdiction depends on the legal character of the pleaded controversy, not just the commercial setting in which the dispute arose.

Justice O'Bryan granted summary dismissal of the proceeding under rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The Court held that none of the claims made by Ms Singhal against either Finsure or BOQ properly invoked federal jurisdiction. The proceeding was therefore dismissed, and the Court ordered Ms Singhal to pay Finsure's costs of the proceeding.

The judgment is important because of what it does and does not decide. It does decide that the case, as framed, could not proceed in the Federal Court. It does not, on the material summarised here, amount to a final determination that Finsure or BOQ were substantively right on the underlying commercial issues. The Court expressly said it assumed the correctness of the background facts solely for the purpose of determining the competing interlocutory applications. That is a procedural posture, not a trial finding.

The judgment also records the procedural path that led to that result. The Court had already overseen attempts by registrars to clarify the claims and mediate the dispute. It had ordered a confidential conferral to identify factual and legal issues that might provide arguable grounds for relief in the Federal Court. Finsure then applied for summary dismissal. BOQ appeared to oppose the joinder application. After a final attempt at mediation failed, both interlocutory applications were heard on 15 December 2025, and judgment was delivered on 23 December 2025.

Businesses should read this case as a reminder that litigation strategy starts before filing. If your dispute concerns termination of a commercial agreement, suspension from a platform, withheld commissions, accreditation decisions, audit findings, references or reputational harm, you need to identify the exact legal source of each complaint. Is it a contract claim? A negligence claim? Defamation? A statutory cause of action? Something else? The answer affects both the forum and the way the case must be pleaded.

This is especially important in regulated industries. It is easy to assume that because a business is licensed, or because the dispute touches on compliance documents or industry guidance, the matter automatically belongs in the Federal Court. This judgment shows that assumption can be wrong. The Court will look at the real legal controversy. If the pleaded claims do not truly arise under Commonwealth law, the Federal Court may dismiss the case before the substantive dispute is tried.

The case also highlights the value of records. The judgment refers to the Introducer Agreement, an audit, an interview, a Broker Incident Report, accreditation termination, suspension notices, withheld commissions, AFCA complaints, an asserted indemnity right, and reference checks sent to other aggregators. In practice, those are the documents and events that shape both the merits and the forum analysis. Businesses should keep them organised from the start of the relationship, not only after a dispute begins.

For businesses that operate through networks, aggregators, platforms or accreditation systems, disputes often involve a mix of contract rights, compliance concerns and reputational consequences. That mix can create confusion about where a claim belongs. This case is a good example. The background involved a credit licence holder, lender concerns, a Broker Incident Report, AFCA complaints and references to Commonwealth legislation. Even so, the Federal Court concluded that the claims before it did not properly invoke federal jurisdiction.

That means businesses should separate two different questions. The first is factual: what happened, who said what, what documents were created, and what financial or reputational consequences followed? The second is legal: what cause of action does that conduct support, and in which forum can it be pursued? Those questions overlap, but they are not the same. A business can have strong factual grievances and still fail if the legal pathway is not properly identified.

In practical terms, before starting proceedings, a business should be able to point to the exact decision being challenged, the exact document or communication said to be wrong, the legal rule said to have been breached, and the remedy sought. If the dispute includes multiple issues, such as contract, negligence, defamation and regulatory allegations, each issue should be tested separately. That discipline can prevent a case from being derailed by threshold jurisdiction problems.

The judgment is Singhal v Finsure Finance & Insurance Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1681, delivered by O'Bryan J in the Federal Court of Australia on 23 December 2025. The file number is VID 756 of 2024. The catchwords record that this was an application for summary dismissal under rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), and that the proceeding failed to raise a claim that enlivened federal jurisdiction.

The orders made were that the proceeding be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding. On the material summarised here, the decision should be read as a procedural jurisdiction ruling rather than a final merits judgment on the underlying commercial dispute.