Carrick

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Carrick applied for orders to transfer jurisdiction to the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris concerning the estate of her deceased former partner, Mr J. The dispute centred on the protection of the property of the parties' child, D, who was the sole beneficiary of Mr J's intestate estate, which included assets located in France.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the request from the French court to assume jurisdiction for measures concerning the child's property. This involved considering the application of the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (the Child Protection Convention), and whether the conditions for transferring jurisdiction under Australian law and the Convention were met.

Justice Bennett found that the child, D, was habitually resident in Australia, and that the Child Protection Convention was in force between Australia and France. The court was satisfied that France was a state where the child's property was located and with which the child had a substantial connection, as per Article 8(2) of the Convention. Crucially, the court determined that the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris was better placed than any Australian court to assess the child's best interests regarding her father's estate and to appoint a guardian for her property, aligning with the Convention's aim of according pre-eminent jurisdiction to the child's habitual residence while allowing for transfer in specific circumstances.

The court granted the request, ordering that the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris assume jurisdiction to take necessary measures for the protection of the child's property within her deceased father's estate, including appointing or deciding the powers of a guardian. The Australian Central Authority was directed to communicate the outcome to the competent authority in France, and the applicant was ordered to serve the sealed order on the French judge, the Australian Central Authority, and any other appropriate parties.