Legal Journals

Parallel proceedings in New South Wales and New Zealand arising from relationship breakdown

By Perry Herzfeld

In Du Bray v McIlwraith [2009] NSWSC 888, the New South Wales Supreme Court was faced with the not uncommon circumstance of the breakdown of a relationship with connections to Australia and New Zealand. The parties had lived in a de facto relationship for 14 years, beginning in New Zealand and then in Australia. Shortly before their separation, Ms McIlwraith had returned to New Zealand to set up a home there for herself and Mr Du Bray.

Following their separation and unsuccessful discussions as to a property settlement, Mr Du Bray instituted proceedings in New South Wales and Ms McIlwraith shortly afterwards instituted proceedings in New Zealand. Ms McIlwraith sought a stay of the New South Wales proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds.

For the details of the claims, and the legislation under which they were made, see the decision itself. In the result, Barrett J stayed the New South Wales proceedings. He concluded that Ms McIlwraith made various claims in the New Zealand proceedings which could not be pursued in New South Wales and that Mr Du Bray’s proceedings were instituted with the intention of creating a platform to seek a stay of anticipated proceedings by Ms McIlwraith in New Zealand.

Of interest are Barrett J’s conclusions about a claim made by Mr Du Bray in the New South Wales proceedings for possession of property in New Zealand. His Honour noted that, as a result of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Foreign Land) Act 1989 (NSW), the Mocambique rule is abolished in New South Wales and the Court has a discretion whether to exercise jurisdiction in relation to foreign land. However, having regard to the New Zealand legislation relating to enforcement of non-monetary judgments, it appeared that any judgment for possession of land in New Zealand could not be directly enforced in New Zealand. Somewhat curiously, though the New Zealand legislation contemplates enforcement of non-monetary judgments of courts prescribed by orders of the Governor General, no such orders have been made. Mr Du Bray would, of course, be able to pursue such a claim in New Zealand.

Related posts:

1. Supreme Court of Canada Addresses Role of Parallel Proceedings in Stay Applications Canada’s highest court has delivered its judgment in Teck...
2. Impact of Parallel Proceedings on British Columbia Litigation In Lloyd’s Underwriters v. Cominco Ltd. (available here) the...
3. Ontario Court Analyses Role of Parallel Proceedings in Application for Stay In Molson Coors Brewing Co. v. Miller Brewing Co....

Full post as published by Conflict of Laws on September 17, 2009 (boomark / email).