BLIGH & JAMES

In proceedings before Rees J of the Family Court of Australia, the applicant sought property settlement orders, while the respondent sought a stay of those proceedings. The parties resided in Australia, but they were also the trustees of a New Zealand-governed Trust that owned property located in New Zealand. The respondent contended that New Zealand was the more appropriate forum for the determination of the property proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Australian proceedings should be stayed on the grounds that New Zealand constituted a more appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute, particularly in light of the parties' roles as trustees of a New Zealand Trust holding New Zealand property and the governing law of that Trust being New Zealand law.

Rees J determined that New Zealand was indeed the more appropriate forum. The court applied the principles governing forum non conveniens, considering factors such as the location of the relevant property, the governing law of the Trust, and the overall connection of the dispute to New Zealand. Consequently, the court found that the proceedings should be stayed pursuant to the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth).

The court ordered that the proceedings for property settlement commenced by the applicant be permanently stayed on the grounds that a New Zealand court is the more appropriate court to determine the dispute.