Maylin and Maylin

In the matter of *Maylin and Maylin*, Stevenson J considered an application by the mother to stay proceedings and an application by the father for permission for the children to travel internationally. The dispute concerned the appropriate forum for resolving matters relating to the parties' marital relationship and their children.

The court was required to determine whether Australia was a "clearly inappropriate forum" for the proceedings, as well as whether to grant the father permission for the children to travel from Australia. In considering the "clearly inappropriate forum" issue, the court referred to the non-exhaustive list of factors outlined by the High Court of Australia in *Henry v Henry* (1996) 185 CLR 571. These factors include the jurisdiction of the respective courts, the recognition of their orders, the ability to provide for a complete resolution of the matters, the order and stage of proceedings, costs incurred, the connection of the parties to the jurisdictions, and the parties' ability to participate equally in proceedings.

Stevenson J found that neither Australia nor the foreign jurisdiction (referred to as Country B) lacked jurisdiction over the parties and their marriage. Country B had been exercising jurisdiction for some time without objection. The court noted that the father and children were Australian citizens, which enlivened the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia. The court ultimately made orders permanently staying the mother's applications and granting the father permission for the children to travel with him from Australia pursuant to sections 65Y and 65Z of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).