Tedja v Sony

[2015] HCASL 101

TEDJA

v

SONY

[2015] HCASL 101
M30/2015

1. The applicant and the respondent were married in Jakarta in November 2000.  They have lived in Australia since 2006, apart from a period in 2009-2011 when they returned to Indonesia.  The parties and their children were granted permanent resident visas in 2010.  They separated in 2012, and on 6 May 2013 the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Connolly J) made final orders dealing with issues concerning their children.  On 15 August 2013, the respondent filed an application for divorce in the Federal Circuit Court.  On 26 August 2013, the applicant filed a divorce application in Indonesia.

2. On 28 January 2014, the Federal Circuit Court (Burchardt J) granted the respondent a divorce.  The applicant had submitted that the respondent's application should be dismissed on the basis that Indonesia was the appropriate forum for the matter to be determined.  Burchardt J rejected this submission, holding that, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, Australia was not a clearly inappropriate place in which to have the matter heard and determined.

3. On 16 February 2015, the Family Court of Australia (Strickland J) dismissed the applicant's appeal.  Strickland J held that the applicant's challenges to the exercise of discretion by the primary judge in holding that Australia was not a clearly inappropriate forum were without merit and did not show that the primary judge was plainly wrong so as to justify interfering with the decision.

4. The applicant has applied for special leave to appeal to this Court.  The applicant's draft notice of appeal does not articulate any error of law in the decisions of the Courts below.  To the extent that the applicant's summary of argument is based on new evidence of a divorce order granted in Indonesia, this evidence does not render the orders of the lower Courts erroneous and both the primary judge and the Court below addressed the possibility that the Indonesian proceedings might progress.  An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success.  Special leave is refused. 

5. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
18 June 2015 P.A. Keane