Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Bodey J at first instance where the arguments before the court had centred on forum conveniens, but also drawn upon contentions of issue estoppel and abuse of process.
Facts:
The appellant husband argued that:
- the Malaysian Courts had decided that Malaysia was the proper forum for the litigation;
- the wife’s proceedings in this jurisdiction amounted to an abuse of process; and
- Bodey J should have stayed the wife’s English proceedings.
Held:
- There was no issue estoppel on the question of forum conveniens.
- The decision of the Malaysian Court of Appeal that the wife had failed to establish that Malaysia was “so inappropriate a forum” as to render the proceedings “oppressive and vexatious” did not equate to a determination that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum.
- The wife’s English proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process. A stay would likely only be granted on such grounds in cases of fraud, blatant disregard for due process, or where similar proceedings were already well advanced in another jurisdiction. Finally, the husband’s arguments in relation to discretionary stay did not come close to surmounting the high hurdle presented when attempting to challenge the exercise of judicial discretion.
