Accessibility Skip to Global Navigation Skip to Local Navigation Skip to Content Skip to Search Skip to Site Map

Articles for the keyword(s) "Immovable property"

"Voth in the Family Court: Forum Conveniens in Property and Custody Litigation"

PE Nygh, 1993

The author examines the effect of Voth v Manildra Flower Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 on international litigation in the Family Court of Australia. One of the cases discussed is the Trans-Tasman litigation in Gilmore, where proceedings were commenced in Australia and New Zealand. The article focuses on the consequences of disparate forum conveniens/forum non conveniens doctrines, coupled with different matrimonial property regimes, in Australia and New Zealand.

^ Top of page

"Birch v Birch: Conflicts of Laws Principles"

Simon Porter, 2002

This is an analysis of Birch v Birch [2001] 3 NZLR 413; [2001] NZFLR 563, which concerned the division of the proceeds of a (formerly) foreign immovable asset in terms of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 and more specifically the dates at which to classify, value and establish jurisdiction over such property. Although the Family Court and the High Court reached the same result, the author does not find the different approaches and reasoning adopted by the different judges entirely convincing.

^ Top of page

"Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976: A Choice of Law Rule?"

CF Forsyth, 1976

The author highlights a number of issues in regard to s 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 as a “choice of law” rule, such as: the complexity of the section in respect of its limits of application, outside of which the common law rules apply, as well as the unqualified adoption and extension of the principle of mutability to all movable property. Problems surrounding express choice of law clauses in marriage settlements and alternatives to “matrimonial domicile” as a connecting factor are also addressed.

^ Top of page

“Case Note: Timing it Right”

PRH Webb, 2009

The decision of Shepherd v Shepherd (High Court, Auckland, CIV 2008- 404-002213, 23 October 2008) is noted for the issues it raises in relation to the date at which relationship property is classified as moveable or immovable and the date at which the situs of that property should be determined.