Where related proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction involve additional parties or different issues arising from the same sub-stratum of fact, the correct test for a stay is not whether the local court is a clearly inappropriate forum, but whether the continuation of the local proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive having regard to the controversy as a whole. The mere existence of parallel foreign proceedings involving additional parties and allegations of corporate governance breaches occurring abroad does not, without more, establish that local proceedings are vexatious or oppressive.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.