PCH Offshore Pty Ltd v Dunn (No 2)

PCH Offshore Pty Ltd brought an action against Dunn in Australia for compensation in respect of acts and omissions of Dunn that occurred in Azerbaijan. Dunn sought to set aside the orders made by the Court allowing service of the application and statement of claim on him in Azerbaijan. Dunn argued that PCH was estopped from proceeding in Australia and that Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum. The primary legal issues were whether PCH was estopped from proceeding in Australia and whether Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum for the proceedings.

The Court held that PCH was not estopped from proceeding in Australia. It was not a case of estoppel by representation, as PCH had not made any representation to Dunn that it would not proceed in Australia. The Court also held that Australia was not a clearly inappropriate forum for the proceedings. The Court noted that the Azerbaijani courts had declined jurisdiction over the merits of the claim, and that the parties had agreed that the merits of the claim were to be determined in Australia. The Court held that the matter was not res judicata, as the Azerbaijan proceedings did not involve a final determination of the merits of the claim.

The Court set aside the orders allowing service of the application and statement of claim on Dunn in Azerbaijan, set aside the service of the application and statement of claim on Dunn pursuant to those orders, and ordered PCH to pay Dunn’s costs of the application, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.