Facts: P (Sunland, Dubai company) paid $50M brokerage fee to D (Prudential Investments, broker) to buy land in Dubai. P brought proceedings alleging misleading and deceptive conduct as D misled them because the brokerage was not necessary. 2 of D’s employees were charged with criminal offences in Dubai. P brings proceedings in VSC and also pursues a “civil right” claim in Dubai (civil compensation claim within criminal proceedings against the 2 employees) D applied for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) to prevent P from maintaining civil claims in Dubai. ASI granted, P appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed and the grant of an ASI was upheld. The onus is on the party claiming relief (ASI) to show prima facie vexatious or oppressive in terms of there being nothing to be gained by the party pursuing the foreign proceedings. Then the onus is on the other party to “establish that there is some juridical advantage to be gained or legitimate interest in bringing and pursuing the foreign proceeding”. Here, P could not establish any arguments for juridical advantage. P tried to argue AU judgment not enforceable in Dubai (D had no dubai assets), argued more evidence might be available in Dubai (held illusory and valueless) and bringing proceedings in Dubai might help reputation (held insubstantial and speculative) but these were not successful.
Principle: The onus is on the party claiming an ASI to show prima facie vexatious or oppressive in terms of there being nothing to be gained by the party pursuing the foreign proceedings. Then the onus is on the other party to establish a juridical advantage to be gained or legitimate interest in the foreign proceeding.