Table of contents
- Practical implications
- Court details
- Facts
- Principles—is the court satisfied that the requirements for staying the proceedings have been met?
- Recap of the authority
- Principle 3—'the' correct jurisdiction or 'a' correct jurisdiction?
- Principle 2—overwhelming or very strong reasons
- Principle 3—impact of the involvement of a third party
- Application—why the court was not satisfied that the requirements for staying the proceedings had been met
- Material non-disclosure
More sections of this document available when you sign-in to Lexis+ or register for a free trial.
Article summary
DR analysis: Smith-Stuart J has dismissed an application that the court should decline proceedings. In doing so, practical considerations are highlighted for practitioners whether making an application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction or seeking to have such an order set aside. The extent to which third parties to proceedings are relevant when determining this type of application is differentiated from the relevance when dealing with anti-suit injunctions or freezing orders due to the draconian sanctions that would be applied to the defendant in these other circumstances.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial