Commonwealth Consolidated Acts Commonwealth Consolidated Acts(1) On application under section 17 , the Australian court may, by order, stay the proceeding if it is satisfied that a New Zealand court:
(a) has jurisdiction to determine the matters in issue between the parties to the proceeding; and
(b) is the more appropriate court to determine those matters.
(2) In determining whether a New Zealand court is the more appropriate court to determine those matters, the Australian court must take into account the following matters:
(a) the places of residence of the parties or, if a party is not an individual, its principal place of business;
(b) the places of residence of the witnesses likely to be called in the proceeding;
(c) the place where the subject matter of the proceeding is situated;
(d) any agreement between the parties about the court or place in which those matters should be determined or the proceeding should be commenced (other than an exclusive choice of court agreement to which subsection 20 (1) applies);
(e) the law that it would be most appropriate to apply in the proceeding;
(f) whether a related or similar proceeding has been commenced against the defendant or another person in a court in New Zealand;
(g) the financial circumstances of the parties, so far as the Australian court is aware of them;
(h) any matter that is prescribed by the regulations;
(i) any other matter that the Australian court considers relevant;
and must not take into account the fact that the proceeding was commenced in Australia.
(3) An order under subsection ( 1) may be made subject to any conditions the Australian court considers are appropriate in order to facilitate, without delay or undue expense, the determination of the matters in issue between the parties to the proceeding.