Teo and Ung (No 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife, Ms Ung, to discharge an anti-suit injunction previously granted against her, which restrained her from proceeding with property division proceedings in China. The wife also sought a stay of the parties' property settlement applications before the Australian court pending the finalisation of the Chinese proceedings. The husband, Mr Teo, opposed these applications.

The court was required to determine whether new evidence, specifically concerning the husband's entitlement to compensation from the compulsory acquisition of a Chinese property, warranted the discharge of the anti-suit injunction and a stay of the Australian proceedings. The wife argued that this new material, along with the listing of the Chinese proceedings for trial and the potential loss of Chinese freezing orders if those proceedings were withdrawn, fundamentally altered the circumstances considered by the court when the injunction was initially granted. The wife also contended that Australia might be a clearly inappropriate forum for the dispute, given the significant value of Chinese assets.

Justice McEvoy found that the new evidence regarding the husband's compensation entitlement did not materially alter the basis upon which the anti-suit injunction was originally made. The court affirmed that Australia was not a clearly inappropriate forum for the litigation, noting that the Australian proceedings were commenced first, the parties held Australian assets, and the Australian court could provide a complete resolution of the dispute. While acknowledging that the husband could have been clearer in his initial evidence, the court concluded that this would not have led to a different decision regarding the injunction or the stay. However, accepting the wife's submissions that orders were needed to protect the compensation proceeds, the court ordered that any compensation received by the husband be placed in a joint bank account and that the husband be restrained from leaving the Commonwealth pending final property orders. The wife's application to discharge the injunction and stay the proceedings was otherwise dismissed.