Concurrent proceedings in different jurisdictions do not constitute an abuse of process for the purposes of setting aside registration of a foreign judgment under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) where the proceedings seek different relief and the relief sought in one jurisdiction is not available in the other. A non-exclusive jurisdiction clause does not operate to deprive other courts of jurisdiction when proceedings are commenced in a specific court; an election under such a clause does not preclude commencement of proceedings elsewhere. Filing an unconditional memorandum of appearance and actively participating in foreign proceedings constitutes voluntary submission to jurisdiction under s 7(3)(a)(i), and s 6(13) permits registration of a foreign judgment for the ascertained principal amount even where interest components are unascertained.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.