PIERSON & ROMILLY

In this matter before Stevenson J, the applicant sought a permanent stay of proceedings initiated by the respondent. The dispute concerned proceedings arising out of the marital relationship between the parties, specifically relating to their property.

The court was required to determine whether Australia was a "clearly inappropriate forum" for the respondent's proceedings. This involved considering various factors relevant to matrimonial causes, including the jurisdiction of Australian and foreign courts, the recognition of their respective orders, the ease of enforcement of orders in other countries, and which forum could most effectively resolve the entirety of the parties' controversy. Further considerations included the order and stage of proceedings, costs incurred, the parties' connections to each jurisdiction, the issues on which relief might depend, and the parties' ability to participate equally in proceedings.

Stevenson J applied the principles outlined by the High Court in *Henry v Henry* (1996) 185 CLR 571, which provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining a "clearly inappropriate forum" issue. The court noted that the respondent's application fell within the statutory definition of a "matrimonial cause" under section 4(1)(ca) of the relevant Act, as it concerned property proceedings arising out of the marital relationship. The court also confirmed that proceedings could be instituted under section 39(4) of the Act if any party was an Australian citizen, ordinarily resident in Australia, or present in Australia at the relevant date.

The court ordered that the applicant's Further Amended Initiating Application filed on 21 May 2018 be stayed permanently.