Facts: CSR (AU company) and CSR America (US subsidiary) sued their US insurer (Cigna) in New Jersey in 1995 (sought treble damages for asbestos claim under Sherman Act). Cigna (US and AU) commenced in NSW asking for declaration of no liability and an anti-suit injunction.
Issue: Were the proceedings vexatious and oppressive?
Held: NSW proceedings (but not US proceedings) extend to AU asbestos claims as well as US asbestos claims. US proceedings involve claims for damages against Cigna (but not NSW proceedings) i.e. the claim for statutory treble damages under the Sherman Act cannot be pursued in NSW. The dominant purpose of Cigna (Insurer) bringing proceedings in NSW was to prevent the Pl’s from pursuing remedies only available in the US. Proceedings which are brought for the dominant purpose of preventing another party from pursuing remedies available in the courts of another country and not available in this country are “seriously and unfairly ... prejudicial [and] damaging” and are oppressive in the Voth sense.
Principle: Foreign proceedings are to be viewed as vexatious/oppressive only if there is nothing to be gained from them over and above what may be gained in local proceedings. If they are brought for the purpose of preventing access to better remedies overseas, then they are considered vexatious and oppressive.