Facts: There were proceedings in Singapore brought by UBS, and proceedings in NSW, brought by Telesto. Telesto did not appear in the Singaporean proceedings so UBS received a default judgement. UBS attempted for a stay or dismissal of NSW proceedings. Telesto argued that recognising the Singaporean judgment would be contrary to public policy because it would deprive Telesto of its rights under consumer and protection legislation. Their contract had a selection clause re Singapore court.
Art. 19 of Governing Law and Jurisdiction: “...with the law of the country in which the relevant account is booked and the client irrevocably and unconditionally submits to the non-exclusive J of the courts of such country, unless otherwise specified”.
Singapore proceedings concerned the effect of a settlement agreement which Telesto Investments claimed should be set aside. The Court rejected this and upheld the agreement.
In NSW proceedings, Telesto Investments claimed events occurred prior to the settlement being concluded, including breach of fiduciary duty, misleading and deceptive conduct etc. UBS AG was attempting to have the NSW proceeding stayed on the basis that the Singaporean judgement was res judicata.
Outcome: NSW Court gave effect to Singaporean judgement where the Singaporean courts recognised a settlement agreement. The agreement wasn’t ousting the operation of the consumer protection laws, Telesto was merely settling its claims under the laws, and that is not contrary to public policy.
Issue: Should NSW court grant a stay of proceedings as the Sinagporean judgement was res judicata? Were the proceedings regarding the same issue?
Held: The same rights were at issue in the two proceedings.
Held (at 185): "It appears to be settled that it is possible for res judicata to arise from a foreign judgment”.