Ewing and Ewing (No 2)

In *Ewing and Ewing (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for a stay of proceedings before it, and a cross-application by the wife for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the husband from continuing parallel proceedings in Singapore. Both parties had connections to both jurisdictions, and both agreed that either court could adequately resolve their dispute.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum for the proceedings, applying the test established in *Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd and Anor*. The Court also considered whether an anti-suit injunction should be granted to prevent the husband from pursuing the Singapore proceedings, given the parties' agreement that parallel proceedings should be avoided.

Loughnan J found that the husband had not established that Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum. The Court rejected the husband's contention that he would be unable to participate in the Australian proceedings, and noted that the real property central to the dispute was located in Australia. Consequently, the husband's application for a stay was dismissed. Regarding the wife's application for an anti-suit injunction, the Court noted that the next court event in the Singapore proceedings might assist in resolving the forum dispute, and therefore refused the injunction.