Nandi and Listberg

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by the respondent, Mr Listberg, for summary dismissal of proceedings commenced by the applicant, Ms Nandi. Ms Nandi, a citizen of Country D who habitually resides there with her 15-year-old daughter, sought orders from the Australian court. She alleged Mr Listberg, an Australian citizen who resides in Australia, is the child's father and sought a declaration of paternity, an injunction compelling him to amend Country D parentage records, and child maintenance. Mr Listberg opposed the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to make the orders sought by Ms Nandi, given that the mother and child were citizens and habitual residents of Country D, while the respondent was an Australian citizen residing in Australia. Mr Listberg contended that Country D law governed all aspects of parental responsibility and financial support for the child, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Australian court. He relied on provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically section 111CS, which addresses the applicable law concerning parental responsibility in international situations.

The court dismissed the respondent's application for summary dismissal. It reasoned that while section 111CS of the *Family Law Act* deals with applicable law for parental responsibility, the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996, which underpins this section, explicitly excludes maintenance obligations and the establishment or contesting of a parent-child relationship from its scope. Therefore, the court found that these specific matters, including the declaration of paternity and maintenance, were not governed by the law of the child's habitual residence under section 111CS, and thus the Australian court retained jurisdiction to consider them.

Consequently, the respondent's application for summary dismissal was dismissed, and the proceedings were adjourned for case management and preparation for trial.