Telesto Investments Ltd v UBS AG

Telesto Investments Ltd, an Australian company, brought an action against UBS AG, a Swiss bank, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute revolves around allegations of misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. UBS had obtained an anti-suit injunction in Singapore, preventing Telesto from proceeding with litigation in New South Wales. Telesto commenced proceedings in New South Wales in breach of the Singapore anti-suit injunction. UBS sought a stay of the New South Wales proceedings, arguing that the forum was not appropriate, the proceedings were vexatious and oppressive, and continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

The court had to determine whether New South Wales was a forum non conveniens, and whether the commencement and continuation of proceedings in that jurisdiction would be vexatious, oppressive, or an abuse of process. The court also needed to consider the enforceability of a foreign judgment, particularly in cases where non-monetary relief is sought. Additionally, the court examined whether an issue estoppel could apply in relation to the Singapore court's findings regarding forum non conveniens and whether New South Wales proceedings were vexatious and oppressive.

The court held that the New South Wales proceedings were commenced in breach of the Singapore anti-suit injunction. However, the breach of the injunction was not determinative of the stay application. The court considered principles of comity and the discretion to grant a stay, finding that New South Wales was not a forum non conveniens. The court also found that there was no issue estoppel in relation to the forum non conveniens question but did find an issue estoppel in relation to the Singapore court's finding that the New South Wales proceedings were vexatious and oppressive. The court granted a stay of the New South Wales proceedings, noting that the Singapore anti-suit injunction was a relevant factor in its discretion to grant the stay.

The court ordered that the New South Wales proceedings be stayed until the Singapore proceedings were concluded, subject to certain conditions. The stay was not absolute, and the court retained jurisdiction to revisit the matter if circumstances changed significantly. The court also noted that the enforceability of a foreign judgment in cases involving non-monetary relief was relevant to its discretion to grant a stay.