- Published on
Legal Terms - Forum non conveniens
[Latin: not in accord with the judicial forum] A principle allowing a court to refuse jurisdiction over a case, enabling it to be adjudicated in a different forum (e.g., a foreign court). Such determinations are predominantly at the court's discretion, provided that the party requesting a forum non conveniens ruling must submit to the jurisdiction of the alternative court. The court will grant the stay if it determines that a foreign court with competent jurisdiction is available and that the case can be adjudicated more appropriately for the interests of the parties and the pursuit of justice in that court. Courts typically evaluate criteria such as the location of witnesses, exhibits, and documents; the language of the witnesses and papers; the citizenship of the claimants; and the applicable law in the dispute. Typically, the onus of proof lies with the defendant to convince the court to exercise its discretion in favor of granting a stay; however, if the court determines that an alternative court is accessible, the burden then transfers to the claimant to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances necessitate the trial proceeding in the original court (Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd (The Spiliada) [1987] AC (HL) 460, 476 (Lord Goff)).
[Latin: not in accord with the judicial forum] A principle allowing a court to refuse jurisdiction over a case, enabling it to be adjudicated in a different forum (e.g., a foreign court). Such determinations are predominantly at the court's discretion, provided that the party requesting a forum non conveniens ruling must submit to the jurisdiction of the alternative court. The court will grant the stay if it determines that a foreign court with competent jurisdiction is available and that the case can be adjudicated more appropriately for the interests of the parties and the pursuit of justice in that court. Courts typically evaluate criteria such as the location of witnesses, exhibits, and documents; the language of the witnesses and papers; the citizenship of the claimants; and the applicable law in the dispute. Typically, the onus of proof lies with the defendant to convince the court to exercise its discretion in favor of granting a stay; however, if the court determines that an alternative court is accessible, the burden then transfers to the claimant to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances necessitate the trial proceeding in the original court (Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd (The Spiliada) [1987] AC (HL) 460, 476 (Lord Goff)).
0 Comments