SCARFFE & OBANNON

In this matter before the Honourable Justice Wilson, the applicant husband, residing in Australia, sought orders in relation to property division against the respondent wife, who resided in Singapore. The majority of the parties' assets were located in Australia. The wife had previously commenced litigation concerning the property division in Singapore, an application to stay which was refused by the Singaporean court without written reasons. The husband subsequently commenced the present proceeding in Australia. Both proceedings were at an early stage.

The court was required to determine whether Australia was the clearly inappropriate forum for the Australian proceeding, considering principles of *forum non conveniens*. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Australian proceeding should be stayed, applying relevant Australian authorities such as *Voth v Manildra* and *CSR v Cigna*. A further critical issue was whether an anti-suit injunction should be granted to restrain the wife from continuing the Singaporean proceeding, with the enforceability of Australian court orders concerning Australian property being a significant factor in this determination.

Justice Wilson reasoned that Australia was not the clearly inappropriate forum. The court applied principles of *forum non conveniens* and found that the connection of the parties and the majority of the assets to Australia weighed against a stay of the Australian proceeding. The court also granted an anti-suit injunction, restraining the wife from continuing the Singaporean proceeding. This decision was influenced by the critical importance of the Australian court's ability to enforce its orders in relation to the Australian property.

The court ordered that the wife's application to stay the Australian proceeding be refused. The wife was restrained from continuing with the Singaporean proceeding until further order. The husband's applications for the appointment of a single expert to value specific property and for full and frank disclosure were referred to the docketed registrar. Further hearings were also referred to the registrar for case management, and the wife's applications for interim orders were dismissed.