Pretrial application — relationship property dispute — division of assets — movable and immovable assets — protest to jurisdiction — forum conveniens — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 7 — Family Court Rules 2002, r 43 — Liu v Yang [2015] NZHC 2965, [2016] NZFLR 567 — Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex [1986] 3WLR 972, [1987] AC 460 (HL) — Howson v Howson HC Hamilton CP52/01, 2 May 2002 — Gilmore v Gilmore [1993] NZFLR 561. The applicant wife in these proceedings sought orders to divide the parties' relationship property. The respondent husband opposed the application, protesting the jurisdiction of a New Zealand court to hear the case, stating that Korea was the forum conveniens. The parties had been married since 1978 and had two adult children, and various different assets which included the family home and proceeds of sale from various other properties (in New Zealand and in Korea) and a business. The respondent initially protested jurisdiction under r 43 of the Family Court Rules 2002, but subsequently acknowledged that the Court did have jurisdiction to hear the case pursuant to s 7 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The onus was then on the respondent to show that New Zealand was forum nonconveniens, which is a fact-specific inquiry. The Judge was not satisfied that there was any connection between the New Zealand property and the moveable assets and Korea. Furthermore, the parties were not yet divorced and had no grounds to seek a divorce in Korea. There was no other forum available to hear the case. The respondent's protest to jurisdiction was therefore unsuccessful. The Judge made various administrative directions in relation to the property proceedings. Judgment Date: 7 May 2020.