Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Forum Non Conveniens and Australian Family Law Cases

September 18, 2008/in /by Perry Herzfeld
image_pdfimage_print

Frank Bates, Professor of Law at the University of Newcastle (New South Wales), has a short article entitled ‘Stay Proceedings and Forum Non Conveniens in Recent Australian Family Law’ at (2008) 57(3) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 649.  The article discusses the decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Kwon v Lee [2006] FamCA 730; (2006) FLC 93-287, which considered the interaction between the Australian common law test for forum non conveniens applications (whether the forum is clearly inappropriate) and the legislative requirement that, in deciding whether to make a parenting order in relation to a child, the Family Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Perry Herzfeld https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Perry Herzfeld2008-09-18 23:34:422008-09-20 11:02:25Forum Non Conveniens and Australian Family Law Cases

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
Link to: Article: How Modern Assisted Reproductive Technologies Challenge the Traditional Realm of Conflicts of Law Link to: Article: How Modern Assisted Reproductive Technologies Challenge the Traditional Realm of Conflicts of Law Article: How Modern Assisted Reproductive Technologies Challenge the Traditional... Link to: Eighteen Publications on South African Private International Law 2007-2008 Link to: Eighteen Publications on South African Private International Law 2007-2008 Eighteen Publications on South African Private International Law 2007-2008
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top