Sakari Resources Ltd v Purvis

The dispute in Sakari Resources Ltd v Purvis involved Sakari Resources Ltd, a company incorporated in Singapore, and Purvis, who commenced proceedings in the general division of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The controversy stemmed from Purvis' claim against Sakari for a termination payment under his contract of employment. Sakari, after being served with these proceedings, initiated related proceedings in the High Court of Singapore involving additional parties. Sakari then applied to the Master for a stay of the Western Australian proceedings on the grounds that their continuation would be vexatious or oppressive. The Master dismissed the application, finding that Western Australia was not a clearly inappropriate forum for the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate test to apply in determining whether to grant a stay of proceedings in the face of related proceedings in another jurisdiction. The court had to decide whether the Master had applied the correct legal test and whether the Western Australian proceedings were vexatious or oppressive when considering the entire controversy, including the Singapore proceedings. Additionally, the court needed to address whether a temporary stay pending the outcome of the Singapore proceedings was warranted.

The court found that the Master had applied an incorrect test by focusing on whether Western Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum rather than assessing whether the Western Australian proceedings were vexatious or oppressive in the context of the broader controversy. The court concluded that the Master should have considered the entire controversy, including the Singapore proceedings, in determining whether the Western Australian proceedings were vexatious or oppressive. Given that the appeal was dismissed and the alternative ground relating to the temporary stay was not pressed, the court did not address the latter issue. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the respondent applied for indemnity costs based on the Calderbank offer.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and it granted the respondent's application for indemnity costs on the basis that the appellant had rejected a Calderbank offer. The costs were to be determined on the papers, reflecting the appellant's rejection of the settlement offer without a hearing.