Suzlon Energy Limited v Frankfurter Bankgesellschaft (Schweiz) AG

Suzlon Energy Limited and others sought leave to appeal against a decision of Rares J to grant a stay of part of a Cross-Claim against three Swiss banks on forum non conveniens grounds. The applicants argued that the primary judge had miscarried in his exercise of discretion to stay part of the proceeding on forum non conveniens grounds. The respondents argued that the primary judge's decision should be upheld, and that the applicants had failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the primary judge. The Full Court considered the legal issues and found that there was no error of principle demonstrated in the primary judge's reasoning and no error of law or logic in his decision. The Full Court held that considerable caution should be exercised before the Court will entertain an appeal from a decision of this kind. The Full Court dismissed the applicants' application for leave to appeal and the respondents' application for an extension of time to cross-appeal.

The Full Court found that the primary judge had correctly instructed himself and exercised his discretion appropriately. The Full Court noted that the stay granted by the primary judge did not finally determine any substantive rights raised by the Suzlon group's claims against the three Swiss banks. The Full Court also found that the applicants had failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the primary judge and that his Honour had addressed in a most satisfactory way all of the matters which are encompassed within the putative grounds of appeal notified by the Suzlon group. The Full Court held that the application for leave to appeal must be considered for what it truly is: An application for permission to bring forward an appeal in respect of a discretionary judgment in relation to a matter of practice and procedure. The Full Court dismissed the applicants' application for leave to appeal and the respondents' application for an extension of time to cross-appeal. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to their Application for Leave to Appeal.