FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| NEVILL & NEVILL | [2015] FamCA 876 |
| FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay on forum grounds under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – “More appropriate forum” test is that which is to be applied, not the common law “clearly inappropriate forum” test – Husband has filed proceedings in New Zealand and the wife has unconditionally acceded to the jurisdiction – No issue between the parties that both Australian and New Zealand courts have jurisdiction to determine the property issues between the parties consequent to the breakdown of their marriage – Application of factors identified in s 19(2) of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – Marriage subsisted mainly in New Zealand – Each party has New Zealand based discretionary trusts with the applicable law of each trust being that of New Zealand – Assets substantially situated in New Zealand – Asserted juridical advantage of the proceedings being heard and determined in Australia considered – Determined that New Zealand is the more appropriate forum for determination of the dispute – Australian proceedings permanently stayed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZ) Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) Trusts (Hague Convention) Act 1991 (Cth) |
| BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Nevill |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Nevill |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 2103 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 20 October 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Kent J |
| HEARING DATE: | 15 September 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Page of Queen's Counsel |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Damien Greer Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Dr Sayers of Counsel |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Jones McCarthy Lawyers |
Orders
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
These proceedings BRC2103/2015 be permanently stayed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Nevill & Nevill has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
FILE NUMBER: BRC2103/2015
| Ms Nevill |
Applicant
And
| Mr Nevill |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The husband and wife, New Zealand nationals, met and commenced a relationship in New Zealand in April 2002 where they commenced cohabitation on 25 January 2003 and married in…
Continue reading Nevill and Nevill
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Nevill and Nevill [2015] FamCA 876
- Case
- [2015] FamCA 876
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the circumstances warranted the permanent cessation of the proceedings. This involved an assessment of the grounds upon which a permanent stay of proceedings could be granted under Australian law, and whether those grounds were met in this particular instance.
Kent J determined that a permanent stay was appropriate. While the precise reasoning is not elaborated, the decision to permanently stay proceedings typically indicates that the Court found the continuation of the litigation would be an abuse of process, or that there was some other compelling reason to prevent further legal action. The Court's order reflects a final determination that the proceedings should not continue.
The Court ordered that the proceedings, identified as BRC2103/2015, be permanently stayed.
Orders
Orders of the court
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
These proceedings BRC2103/2015 be permanently stayed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.