Van Londen v Dobson

[2005] HCATrans 1007

[2005] HCATrans 1007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S306 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SOFIE VAN LONDEN

Applicant

and

ROGER WILLIAM DOBSON

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2005, AT 9.15 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant wife resides in the Netherlands and the respondent husband in Australia.  The respondent husband has instituted proceedings in relation to property and in relation to the four children of the marriage in the Family Court of Australia.  The applicant wife has instituted proceedings in the Netherlands in relation to custody, child support, maintenance and property.

A single judge of the Family Court of Australia dismissed an application by the respondent husband to restrain the applicant wife from prosecuting her spousal and child maintenance claims in the Netherlands.  The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Finn, May, Boland JJ) allowed an appeal and widened an anti-suit injunction granted by the primary judge in other respects so that it applied to spousal and child maintenance issues.  The Full Court gave detailed reasons which included a close analysis of the decisions in Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571 and CSR Limited v Cigna Insurance Australia Limited (1997) 189 CLR 345.

The applicant’s summary of argument identifies a single question:

“Is it necessary for the granting of anti-suit injunction that the party enjoined from proceedings in a foreign court should be amenable to the jurisdiction in which the anti-suit injunction is sought?”

That question is in this case is purely academic, since the applicant wife was amenable to the jurisdiction in Australia, had submitted to it, and is seeking orders in relation to property in Australia.  Accordingly this case is not an appropriate one in which to examine the question posed.

Both parties filed written submissions, but neither wishes to supplement them with oral argument. 

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave with costs.  I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.18 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED