Zu and Hamnet

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Zu (the applicant) and Mr Hamnet (the respondent) were involved in proceedings concerning an application to set aside a binding financial agreement, with potential subsequent applications for property settlement and spousal maintenance. The proceedings were heard in Sydney.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings should be transferred from the Sydney Registry to the Melbourne Registry of the Family Court of Australia, to be determined by the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties. The court was required to consider the location of the parties, the property in dispute, and crucially, the residency of witnesses.

Rees J determined that the interests of justice and convenience favoured a transfer to Melbourne. The court noted that all but one of the witnesses, including legal practitioners, an interpreter, the husband's family members, his accountant, and a medical practitioner, resided in Melbourne. The property in dispute was located in Melbourne or China, and the husband resided in Melbourne. While the wife resided in Sydney, she was in short-term accommodation with no substantial connection to the city. The court found that conducting cross-examinations electronically in Sydney would be inefficient and difficult, and there was no evidence suggesting the matter would be dealt with more expeditiously in Sydney. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the Melbourne Registry. The costs of both parties were reserved.