Khademollah & Khademollah

This case concerned an appeal by the husband against a decision of the trial judge. The central dispute revolved around the date of separation of the parties and the relevance of Iranian law to Australian divorce and property proceedings. The appeal was heard by Finn and Kay JJ, with Holden J concurring.

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the trial judge erred in her finding regarding the date of separation, and whether the matrimonial law of Iran had any bearing on the Australian proceedings. Specifically, the husband argued that parallel proceedings in Iran, where he claimed the parties were bound by their marriage contract, should lead to a stay of the Australian proceedings.

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding on the date of separation, finding ample evidence to support her conclusion that the parties had not separated immediately upon arriving in Australia, despite the husband's assertions. Regarding the relevance of Iranian law, the Court considered the principles established in *Henry v Henry* concerning vexatious and oppressive parallel proceedings. The Court reasoned that property proceedings arising from the breakdown of a marriage are intrinsically linked to the dissolution proceedings. Given that the Australian proceedings involved real estate located in Australia, an Australian court would likely not recognise an Iranian decree concerning that property, as Australian courts generally decline jurisdiction over foreign land. Furthermore, foreign judgments in personam are only enforceable in Australia if for a fixed sum, and the *Foreign Judgments Act 1991* (Cth) did not apply to the circumstances or to matrimonial causes.

The Court found no error in the trial judge's approach and dismissed the appeal.