Relationship property proceedings — dissolution of marriage — protest to jurisdiction — forum conveniens — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 4, 37, 43, 44, 45, 157 & 182 — District Court Rules, rr 6.23, 6.24, 6.27 & 6.32 — Family Court Rules, r 130 — Forde v Hoenie [2018] NZFC 164 — J v J [2020] NZHC 2887 — de Dampiere v de Dampiere [1987] 2 WLR 1006 (HC) — Gilmore v Gilmore [1993] 10 FRNZ 469 (HC) — Lu v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China [2020] NZHC 402 — AKR v SP HC Auckland CIV-2011-404 002998, 10 October 2011. The applicant, who lived in New Zealand, sought an order from the New Zealand Family Court for the dissolution of the parties' marriage. The parties had been married some 22 years and had two children together. The respondent lived in the United States with the children and had applied to the Texan Family Court for an order for divorce, division of community property, confirmation of separate property, and conservatorship and various other orders. The main issue for determination was whether New Zealand was the most appropriate forum to hear the case. The onus was on the person submitting that an overseas jurisdiction was the forum conveniens to show not just that New Zealand is not the appropriate forum but also that the foreign forum is clearly more appropriate. In establishing this, a court would consider convenience, expense, witness availability, respective residences, and all other connections. The Court found that the respondent had not shown that the Texan court was the more appropriate forum and set aside the respondent's protest to jurisdiction. The proceedings were to progress in the New Zealand Family Court. Judgment Date: 9 March 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *