Raveh v The Official Receiver of The State of Israel in his capacity as Liquidator North America Bank Ltd (In Liq)

[2002] WASCA 27

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Stay of proceedings
3. › Forum non conveniens
4. › Clearly inappropriate forum test
5. › Whether Western Australia clearly inappropriate forum where related proceedings pending in Israel
6. › Whether plaintiff who invoked jurisdiction may apply for stay
7. › Discretionary factors
8. › Connecting factors including applicable law, location of witnesses, and scope of foreign proceedings
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal from discretionary decision
4. › Whether primary judge erred in exercise of discretion
5. › Whether appellate court should interfere with discretionary balancing of forum non conveniens factors
1. Private International Law
2. › Forum non conveniens
3. › Stay of local proceedings
4. › Related foreign proceedings
5. › Proceedings between same parties with respect to same issue or controversy
6. › Temporary stay pending determination of foreign proceedings

Quick Take

A plaintiff who has invoked the jurisdiction of a court is not precluded as a matter of law from obtaining a stay of those proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds, at least where the plaintiff is also a defendant to a counterclaim. The doctrines of waiver, election, and approbation and reprobation do not prevent a plaintiff from seeking a stay where the plaintiff has pursued complementary (not inconsistent) remedies in different jurisdictions. Where local proceedings cannot dispose of the full dispute and the substantive issues require construction of a foreign law agreement, the local court may be a clearly inappropriate forum even though significant factual issues relate to the local jurisdiction.