Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of proceedings - applicants in these (Federal Court) proceedings suing, in Supreme Court of State of New York, a New York firm of attorneys ("Skadden Arps") which had been joined by respondents in these proceedings as cross respondents to their cross claims - same subject matter in both proceedings - these (Federal Court) proceedings far advanced and fixed for hearing commencing 18 March 1996 for minimum estimate of six months - motion by Skadden Arps for injunction restraining applicants from prosecuting New York proceedings ("anti-suit injunction") - evidence that US courts exercise a jurisdiction to enjoin such applications in foreign courts ("anti-anti-suit injunctions") - application now made ex parte in these (Federal Court) proceedings for injunction restraining applicants from seeking such anti-anti suit injunction in New York pending consideration by this Court of Skadden Arps' motion ("anti-anti-anti suit injunction") - serious question to be tried - limited purpose of holding status quo for short period to ensure that Skadden Arps able to have this Court hear its motion for anti-suit injunction - balance of convenience - ex parte injunction granted for short period from Thursday 21 September to Monday 25 September for which date Skadden Arps' motion for anti-suit injunction made returnable.
National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v The Sentry Corporation (1989) 22 FCR 209 (Gummow J). Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] 1 AC 871 (PC). Re Siromath Pty Ltd (No 3) (1991) 25 NSWLR 25 (McClelland J). Laker Airways v Sabena, Belgian World Airlines 731 F.2d 909 (1984). Owens-Illinois Inc v Webb 809 S.W.2d 899 (1991). Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation v Askewe 823 S.W.2d 759 (1992). Owens-Corning Fibreglass Corporation v Baker 838 S.W.2d 838 (1992). Cigna Insurance Australia Limited v CSR Limited, unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, Commercial Division, Rolfe J, 15 August 1995. Bank of New York v Bank of America 861 F Supp 225 (1994). ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CO & ORS v AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED & ORS (No 16)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate