Search Results

This chapter reviews the work on a global convention on jurisdiction and judgments at the Hague Conference on Private International Law. In particular, it seeks to save for future consideration the compromise reached in those negotiations on application of the discretionary common law doctrine of forum non conveniens and the strict civil law doctrine of lis pendens. It also considers work on related issues done by the American Law Institute and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT).

This chapter details the history of the development of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the United States, demonstrating an early inclination to allow judicial discretion to decline jurisdiction when there is a more appropriate forum in another jurisdiction. It traces the major cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, and reviews the application of the doctrine in lower courts. It also considers the impact on the doctrine of transfer rules within the federal court system, the relationship between the development of the doctrine in federal courts and in state courts, the relationship of the doctrine to basic issues of jurisdiction, and the difference (if any) in application of the doctrine when the plaintiff is local or foreign.

This chapter considers whether civil law jurisdictions of the world have doctrines that allow courts the discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction when it otherwise exists. Particular attention is given to Germany, Japan, and the rules developed through the Brussels Regulation in the European Union. The development in Latin American nations of legislation designed to frustrate the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the United States is also covered.

This chapter sets out the history of the development of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the United Kingdom, from its creation in Scotland to its current day status in the United Kingdom. It reviews the major cases that have developed the doctrine, explains the current approach in U.K. courts, and details the impact of the European Union's Brussels Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments on the application of the doctrine in the United Kingdom.

This chapter provides a detailed comparison of the doctrines of forum non conveniens as applied in the four common law jurisdictions considered in Chapters 2-5. It reviews the basic requirements of the doctrine in each country and catalogues similarities and differences dealing with the requirement of an available alternative forum, allocation of the burden of proof, consideration of private interest factors, levels of trail court discretion, the ability to impose conditions on a stay or dismissal, and the treatment of foreign plaintiffs.

This chapter details the history of the development of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in Canada, from early primary reliance on UK law to a modern doctrine that overlaps with decisions on jurisdiction simpliciter and the analysis of anti-suit injunctions. It also covers the adoption of the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens in the civil law code of the Province of Quebec.

This chapter reviews the impact of the rules of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements on the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In particular, it addresses the intersection of law dealing with choice of forum and the discretionary doctrine of forum non conveniens. It demonstrates a strong rationale for ratification of the 2005 Convention.

This chapter provides an overview of the doctrine of forum non conveniens as it is applied in the four principal common law jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia. It outlines the chapters to follow and gives the reader an idea of the purpose of the book.

This chapter details the history of the development of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in Australia, including the movement away from strict application of UK precedent to the development or Australia's own “clearly inappropriate forum” test.