In this article we will examine a recent case of Cattaneo & Okeke [2025] FedCFamC1A 43 regarding a clearly inappropriate forum principle in Australia. The principle of forum “non conveniens” is well-settled in Australian jurisprudence, with courts exercising a discretionary power to stay proceedings where the local forum is “clearly inappropriate.”

The decision in Cattaneo & Okeke [2025] FedCFamC1A 43 reaffirms this principle within the context of international family law disputes, particularly concerning overlapping parenting, property, and maintenance claims in multiple jurisdictions. This case note analyses the Full Court’s reasoning in dismissing the appeal and outlines its implications for the application of forum non conveniens in the context of property adjustment orders under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Issue

Whether the Family Court of Western Australia erred in granting a permanent stay of proceedings on the basis that it was a “clearly inappropriate forum” for determining property adjustment claims under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in light of concurrent proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction (Country C).

Rule

The applicable test for staying proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens is whether the Australian court is a “clearly inappropriate forum,” as laid down in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538. This is not a comparative exercise with the foreign jurisdiction; rather, the burden lies on the party seeking the stay to demonstrate that Australia is clearly unsuitable for the just resolution of the dispute.

The Court’s discretion to permanently stay proceedings is guided by the following:

Disruption to parallel proceedings.

Duplication of legal costs.

Connection of parties to the jurisdiction.

Whether justice can be done in the foreign court.

Further, appellate review of such discretionary decisions is confined by the principles in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499: there must be an identifiable error in the exercise of discretion—such as acting on a wrong principle or a plainly unjust result—for an appellate court to intervene.

Application

In Cattaneo & Okeke, the husband initiated property proceedings in Western Australia in June 2022. The wife responded by applying for a stay, relying on the fact that she had previously commenced parenting (October 2020), child maintenance (May 2021), and divorce (November 2021) proceedings in Country C—each with the husband’s participation.

The primary judge granted a permanent stay, concluding that the Australian court was a clearly inappropriate forum. The husband appealed, challenging the factual and legal basis of this decision on several grounds.

The Full Court upheld the primary judge’s reasoning and dismissed the appeal, addressing key issues:

Timing of Proceedings:

The Court affirmed that the wife had invoked Country C’s jurisdiction for property relief via divorce proceedings before the husband filed in Australia. The husband’s argument that the property division aspect had not “substantively” commenced was rejected as a misconstruction of procedural steps in Country C. The Court found the initiation of relief was sufficient to establish jurisdiction. (Cattaneo & Okeke [2025] FedCFamC1A 43, [21]–[23]).

Submission to Foreign Jurisdiction:

The Court agreed that the husband had effectively accepted Country C’s jurisdiction by participating in those proceedings and entering into agreements in May 2022. This participation negated his argument against a stay in Australia.

Overlap of Issues:

The Full Court supported the primary judge’s view that concurrent proceedings in Australia and Country C would lead to duplicative costs, inefficiency, and potential inconsistency. The absence of final orders in parenting and maintenance matters in Country C further supported the stay.

Discretion Not Miscarried:

None of the appeal grounds revealed an error of law or fact significant enough to justify interference. The Full Court reaffirmed that appellate courts do not lightly disturb discretionary findings unless an error consistent with House v The King is clearly made.

Conclusion

The Full Court’s decision in Cattaneo & Okeke reinforces the strong threshold for demonstrating that an Australian court is a clearly inappropriate forum in international family law disputes. The case underscores the importance of party conduct, the interconnectedness of proceedings across jurisdictions, and the Court’s discretion to avoid duplicative litigation. Family law practitioners must be alert to the implications of international proceedings already on foot when advising clients about forum choice and potential stays of proceedings.

If you are involved in a family law dispute with jurisdictional complexities, contact Pannu Lawyers

today for expert legal advice and representation. Our team is dedicated to provide clear, strategic guidance to navigate multi-jurisdictional family law issues. Thus, we ensures that your case is handled in the most appropriate legal setting.

Whether you need assistance with child custody, property settlements, or other family law matters involving jurisdictional challenges, we are here to advocate for your best interests.