When proceedings collide: Managing cross-border family law disputes

There are many, potentially complex issues that may arise upon the breakdown of a relationship where parties have property interests across different jurisdictions.

Common issues for consideration include the appropriate forum for litigating a family law dispute, and the enforceability of Orders pertaining to overseas property.

In the recent decision of Agau & Coemans [2026] FedCFamC1F 189, Justice Campton considers a number of important and long-standing legal principles in respect of forum disputes. The decision relates purely to the wife’s application for an anti-suit injunction and is distinct from any consideration as to the enforceability of cross-border orders.

Background of Agau & Coemans: Parallel proceedings in Australia and China

The case involves a separated couple who own property in both China and Australia. The husband enlivened jurisdiction in Australia by commencing a proceeding pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The wife responded to that application, also seeking property settlement orders, but neither party specifically sought final orders adjusting any property interest in China.

Almost three years later, the husband commenced a proceeding in the People’s Court in China. He argued that the proceedings in the two jurisdictions should run parallel to each other. He asserted, in his evidence, that the Court (in Australia)'…cannot provide complete relief for the entire cross-border disputes between the parties.’¹  This position was taken despite substantial progress in the Australian proceedings, which were effectively ready for trial, and despite interim orders already addressing the Chinese assets, including restraints on dealing with those assets and orders for their valuation.

The husband argued that the Australian Courts are only able to make orders with respect to property in Australia. He asserted that ‘Only a Chinese Court can alter the ownership and divide Chinese property’ and that ‘Orders made as to Chinese property in Australia are not enforceable in China and will not be recognised in that forum.’²

The Court’s findings

The Court did not accept the husband’s position and found that ‘Complete relief is available in the local jurisdiction by way of orders made in personam.’³

The Court agreed with the wife that the husband’s position was misconceived in many respects including:

1. The husband did not contend that Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of the parties’ property settlement;
2. He did not seek a stay of the proceeding in Australia pending the determination of the proceedings in China and in fact contended ‘that each proceeding ought to run parallel to ensure all assets owned by the parties both overseas and in Australia [are] dealt with.’⁴

The Court, citing Hickey and Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) found that it does have '…jurisdiction to make findings as to the specie and value of their property interests, and that this Court can make orders in personam binding each of the parties, directing them to deal with their property and corporate interests, wheresoever located’.⁵

The Court referred to the Full Court’s summary of the principle in Caddy & Miller (1986) where a party should not have to re-litigate an issue that has already been resolved by another court, in particular, '… the right of the individual litigant to be protected from multiple suits for the same cause.’⁶

While there are instances where proceedings may run parallel in different jurisdictions in certain circumstances, the Court held in this instance:

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) granted the anti-suit injunction and ordered that the husband be restrained from taking any steps to progress or further prosecute the proceedings in China. The Court found that this was necessary 'to protect the integrity of these advanced proceedings and to avoid the advent of a circumstance of having courts in different countries applying different considerations, and potentially arriving at different outcomes, on the same subject matter’.⁸

Interestingly, the issue of appropriate forum will more often arise at the very outset of a cross-border dispute, as opposed to after a number of years of contested litigation, which had occurred in this decision of Agau & Coemans.

Implications for parties with cross-border interests

It is essential for parties facing cross-border issues to obtain advice at an early stage, before substantive proceedings are commenced in any jurisdiction. Early strategic decisions can significantly affect the outcome, cost and duration of proceedings, as well as the risk of parallel litigation.

In particular, parties should consider engaging a collaborative team of legal services across multiple jurisdictions to determine the most appropriate forum for the dispute to be determined.

Taking a proactive and coordinated approach at the outset can help minimise procedural complexity, reduce the likelihood of inconsistent outcomes, and place parties in the strongest position to achieve an efficient resolution.

¹ Agau & Coemans [2026] FedCFamC1F 189, at [17].
² Ibid at [30].
³ Ibid at [37].
⁴ Ibid [28].
⁵ Ibid at [32]; (Hickey and Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener)
(2003) FLC 93-143).
⁶Agau & Coemans [2026] FedCFamC1F 189, at [35]; Caddy & Miller (1986) FLC 91-720, 75,233.
⁷Agau & Coemans [2026] FedCFamC1F 189, at [37].
⁸ Ibid at [38].