Goh, Ambrosini & Hollingsworth v BPH Energy Limited & Grandbridge Limited [2019] NSWDC 559

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings for Damages for Alleged Failure to Remunerate Former Directors Under Board of Directors Services Agreements / Defendants' Notice of Motion Seeking a Stay of Proceedings Pursuant to S 20 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (cth)

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be stayed under s 20 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth).' 'Whether the District Court of Western Australia was the appropriate court to determine all matters in issue between the parties.' 'What weight should be given to the Western Australian governing law and non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Services Agreements.' 'Whether any limitation prejudice would arise if the New South Wales proceedings were stayed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court of Western Australia was the most appropriate court because the defendant companies and the subject matter of the alleged harm were connected with Western Australia, the Services Agreements contained a Western Australian governing law clause and a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause submitting to Western Australian courts, and related proceedings existed in Western Australia. The residence of the parties and financial circumstances were less significant, and any limitation prejudice was removed by the defendants' indication that they would not rely on limitation arguments arising after commencement of the New South Wales proceedings.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed pursuant to s 20 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), with plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

• ['The proceedings be stayed pursuant to s 20 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth).' "The plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed." 'Liberty to the parties to approach my associate within 21 days if an alternative costs order is sought.']