Wright

In *Wright*, the applicant father sought to be appointed legal guardian for his children's property interests in a non-Convention country, with the intention of selling the property. The dispute centred on whether the Australian court possessed jurisdiction to make such orders as a property protection measure under s 111CK of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the father, which involved appointing him as legal guardian for his children's property interests in Country B and defining his powers in relation to that property. This determination required the court to consider whether the children were habitually resident in Australia, a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction in this context.

Hannam J reasoned that the court did have jurisdiction to make the orders. The court was satisfied that the children were habitually resident in Australia, having immigrated with their father and enrolled in local schools. The father's intention to sell the property and use the proceeds to purchase real estate in Australia, coupled with their permanent residency and impending citizenship application, further supported this finding. The court applied s 111CK of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to grant the father's application.

The court ordered that the father be appointed legal guardian for each child in respect of their interests in the specified property in Country B. His powers as guardian were defined to include holding each child's interest in trust, with the intention of paying them the capital and accumulated interest upon reaching eighteen years of age. The trusts were to be administered in accordance with the *Trustee Act 1925* (NSW), and the guardian was permitted to apply for further orders regarding his powers.