Regie Nationale des Usines Renault v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491

Facts: There was a car crash in New Caledonia (French territory). P (NSW) suffered injuries, returned to Sydney and remained in hospital. He alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligent design and manufacture of D’s vehicle (Renault) whose principal place of business was in France. D applied to have proceedings stayed on the ground that NSW Court was an inappropriate forum for the trial.

Legal history:

First instance: Smart J granted the stay. P applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal: Granted leave and allowed the appeal except in relation to the claims in quasi-contract). D appealed to the HCA.

HCA: Dismissed the appeal.

Outcome: HCA dismissed the appeal, upholding the refusal to stay the proceedings. It was held that NSWSC was not a 'clearly inappropriate forum' simply because the choice of law rules point to foreign (French) law. An Australian court cannot be a clearly inappropriate forum merely by virtue of the circumstance that the choice of law rules which apply in the forum require its courts to apply foreign law as the lex causae. It was D’s task to demonstrate that a trial in NSW would be oppressive (seriously and unfairly burdensome, prejudicial or damaging) or vexatious, (serious and unjustified trouble and harassment).

Issue: Is “inappropriate forum” in UCPR r 11.6 the same as “clearly inappropriate forum”?

Held (majority): “inappropriate” meant “clearly inappropriate” (as in the Voth sense). UCPR r 11.5 and 11.6 have the same test i.e. the forum non conveniens test of clearly inappropriate forum.

Principle: Where a party seeks to get service set aside under UCPR r 11.6, Court has discretion to set aside service if it is an inappropriate forum. This is the same test necessary to stay proceedings under the Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process.