DESPREZ & DESPREZ

In this matter before Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia, the husband and wife, who were in Australia on a 457 skilled worker visa, experienced a breakdown of their marriage. Following this, the husband accepted employment in Country C, their country of origin. The wife subsequently initiated proceedings in Australia under Part VIII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The husband objected to these proceedings, seeking a permanent stay on the grounds of *forum non conveniens*, and concurrently commenced his own property settlement proceedings in Country C. The parenting issues remained unresolved and unaffected by the husband's stay application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Australia was the appropriate forum for the wife's property settlement proceedings, or if the proceedings should be stayed in favour of the jurisdiction of Country C, where the husband had initiated his own proceedings. The court was required to consider the principles of *forum non conveniens* and determine, on balance, which forum was more appropriate for the resolution of the property settlement dispute, given the circumstances of the parties and their connection to both Australia and Country C.

Cronin J reasoned that while the wife and children had resided in Australia, the husband's return to Country C for employment, coupled with his initiation of property proceedings there, weighed heavily in favour of that jurisdiction. The court applied the principles of *forum non conveniens*, considering factors such as the location of assets, the convenience of witnesses, and the availability of a suitable forum to deal with the matter comprehensively. On balance, the court concluded that a stay of the Australian proceedings was warranted.

Consequently, the court ordered a permanent stay of the wife's application for orders under Part VIII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The balance of the wife's initiating application concerning parenting orders was adjourned for trial. The wife's application filed on 20 March 2015 was dismissed. The court also certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel, including two senior counsel and two junior counsel, for the proceedings.