Content deleted Content added
→Historical origin: journal source saying from "eighteenth century" |
m v2.05b - Bot T20 CW#61 - Fix errors for CW project (Reference before punctuation) |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
A concern often raised in applications of the doctrine is [[forum shopping]], or picking a court merely to gain an advantage in the proceeding. This concern is balanced against the public policy of deferring to a plaintiff's choice of venue in claims where there may be more than one appropriate jurisdiction. The underlying principles, such as basing respect given to foreign courts on reciprocal respect or [[comity]], also apply in [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] systems in the form of the legal doctrine of ''[[lis alibi pendens]]''.
''Forum non conveniens'' is not exclusive to common law nations: the maritime courts of the [[Republic of Panama]], although not a common law jurisdiction, also have such power under more restrained conditions.<ref>ARRUE MONTENEGRO, Carlos Alberto. ''Le forum non conveniens à l'assaut des compétences exorbitantes : l'expérience panaméenne'', [[Panthéon-Assas University]], 2006, p. 85. (http://catalogue.ppl.nl/DB=1/SET=1/TTL=1/SHW?FRST=2 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070618012144/http://catalogue.ppl.nl/DB=1/SET=1/TTL=1/SHW?FRST=2 |date=2007-06-18 }}</ref>
==Explanation==
Line 14:
===Historical origin===
Scholars and jurists agree that the concept is of a Scottish origin.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/decisions/Publishedopinions/96-01284.HTM |title=State of Mississippi Judiciary |publisher=Mssc.state.ms.us |date= |accessdate=2022-09-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.judicium.it/news/pistis01.html#_edn1 |title=Forum non conveniens |website=www.judicium.it |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021119182213/http://www.judicium.it/news/pistis01.html |archive-date=2002-11-19}}
In [[Scotland]], the concept was developed in the 18th century and was later incorporated into [[English law|English common law]]. It was first adopted in Scotland in 1610, the case being ''Vernor v Elvies'' [1610] Mor 4788, as an extension of ''forum non competens''; two English residents were tried in Scotland argued a Scottish trial would be inconvenient, the court ruling "The Lords will not find themselves Judges betwixt two Englishmen". It was expanded and applied in the 1860s (in ''Clements v Macauley'' [1866] 4 S 224 and ''Longworth v Hope'' [1865] 3 S 1049), which led to its incorporation into English law. The pleading was used in situations where the competence of the court was unchallenged (unlike ''forum non competens'') but the court was asked to invoke its discretion.<ref name=":0" />
The doctrine had been applied in several jurisdictions under varying names; in the 1793 case ''Robertson v Kerr'', a Massachusetts court refused to apply jurisdiction in a case involving a foreign transaction between non-residents.<ref name=":0" />
According to the "parental function" of [[Law of the Soviet Union|Soviet law]],<ref>James L. Hildebrand,
The Sociology of Soviet Law: The Heuristic and "Parental" Functions, 22 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 157 (1971)</ref> the 1964 R.S.F.S.R. code of civil procedure recognised the doctrine of ''forum non conveniens'' for civil procedures.<ref>J. Alex Morton, Civil Procedure in the U.S.S.R., 7 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 211 (1975)</ref>
===United Kingdom===
{{Expand section|date=March 2022}}
As a member of the [[European Union]], the [[United Kingdom]] signed the [[Brussels Convention]]. The [[Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982]] as amended by the [[Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991]] states:
{{blockquote|Nothing in this Act shall prevent any court in the UK from staying, sisting [staying or stopping a process, or summoning a party<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/publications/docs/glossary.pdf |title=
The case of ''Owusu v Jackson and Others''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2005/C28102.html |title=Owusu (Judgments Convention/Enforcement of judgments) [2005] EUECJ C-281/02 (01 March 2005) |publisher=Bailii.org |date= |accessdate=2022-09-07}}</ref> before the [[European Court of Justice]], was concerned with the relationship between Article 2 of the Brussels Convention and the scope of FNC within the [[European Community]]. In ''Owusu'', the English [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] asked the ECJ whether it could stay a matter brought to it under Article 2 Brussels Convention pursuant to the English FNC rules. The Court held that the Brussels Convention was a mandatory set of rules designed to harmonise and so produce a predictable system throughout the EU. If states were able to derogate from the Convention using their domestic rules of civil procedure, this would deny a uniform result to proceedings based on forum selection. Hence, at 46. the ECJ held:
{{blockquote|the Brussels Convention precludes a court of a Contracting State from declining the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 2 of that convention on the ground that a court of a non-Contracting State would be a more appropriate forum for the trial of the action even if the jurisdiction of no other Contracting State is in issue or the proceedings have no connecting factors to any other Contracting State.<ref>{{
However, some UK commentators{{According to whom|date=March 2022}} argue that the FNC rules may still apply to cases where the other proceedings are not in a Member state but this remains uncertain. A Scottish Court may sist its proceedings in favour of the Courts of England or Northern Ireland on the ground of FNC, since this is settling intra-UK jurisdiction.<ref>Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd, The Times June 8, 1995; Collins: 1995</ref>
===Australia===
In the jurisdictions where the FNC rule survives, a court will usually dismiss a case when the judge determines that the dispute would be better adjudicated in a different forum.
In ''Voth'', the [[High Court of Australia]] refused to adopt the "more appropriate forum" approach and instead affirmed [[William Deane|Justice Deane's]] test.<ref>''Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd'' (1990) 171 CLR 538, 560.</ref> This approach requires that continuation of proceedings in Australia would cause vexation or oppression on the defendant, to such an extent that it would amount to a serious injustice.<ref name=":1" /> The court found that their approach retained the rationale of the traditional doctrine, while sparing them unduly time consuming considerations associated with the complex questions arising under the traditional test.<ref>''Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd'' (1990) 171 CLR 538, 559.</ref>
Notable subsequent developments of the test include the ''Zhang'' and the ''Henry'' cases. In ''Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang'' (2002) 210 CLR 491, the [[High Court of Australia|High Court]] affirmed the "clearly inappropriate forum" test as Australian law, while stating that even where the law of a foreign country had to be applied to decide a case, Australia would not be a "clearly inappropriate" forum for hearing the matter.<ref>Lindell: 2002</ref> In ''Henry v Henry'' (1996) 185 CLR 571, the High Court found that it would be ''[[prima facie]]'' vexatious and oppressive to commence proceedings in Australia after proceedings for substantially the same subject matter were initiated in another jurisdiction.<ref>''Henry v Henry'' (1996) 185 CLR 571, 587.</ref>
===Canada===
Line 43 ⟶ 53:
===United States===
{{Unreferenced section|date=March 2022}}
The defendant may move to dismiss an action on the ground of FNC. Invoking this doctrine usually means that the plaintiff properly invoked the jurisdiction of the court, but it is inconvenient for the court and the defendant to have a trial in the original jurisdiction. The court must balance convenience against the plaintiff's choice of forum. In other words, if the plaintiff's choice of forum was reasonable, the defendant must show a compelling reason to change jurisdiction. If a transfer would simply shift the inconvenience from one party to the other, the plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed.
Line 95 ⟶ 106:
==External links==
{{Portal|Law}}
* [http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/brussels.jurisdiction.and.enforcement.of.judgments.in.civil.and.commercial.matters.convention.1968/doc.html The Brussels Convention] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060626211154/http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/brussels.jurisdiction.and.enforcement.of.judgments.in.civil.and.commercial.matters.convention.1968/doc.html |date=2006-06-26 }}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20081030004354/http://www.sherby.co.il/200803ILQ.pdf ''Forum Non Conveniens'' Dismissal: The Quieter Side of Section 1782 Discovery]
* [https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3543&context=californialawreview "The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190427233320/https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3543&context=californialawreview |date=2019-04-27 }} Edward L. Barrett, Jr. ''California Law Review'', September 1947. (PDF)
* [https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=bjil "Forum Non Conveniens in the United States and Canada"] Donald J. Carney. ''Buffalo Journal of International Law'', July 1996. (PDF)
[[Category:
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]]
[[Category:Venue (law)]]
| |||