Content deleted Content added
Filling in 3 references using Reflinks |
m v2.05b - Bot T20 CW#61 - Fix errors for CW project (Reference before punctuation) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|Conflict of laws legal doctrine}}
{{Italic title}}
{{Conflict of laws}}
Line 9 ⟶ 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 15 ⟶ 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}}</ref><ref>http://works.bepress.com/context/graydon_staring/article/1008/type/native/viewcontent/ {{Bare URL inline|date=September 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/454/235/case.html|title = Piper Aircraft Co. V. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981)}}</ref> Many early Scottish cases invoking FNC were under [[admiralty law]]. FNC thus may ultimately have a [[civilian law|civil law]] origin, as has been asserted by several writers, since admiralty law is based in civil law concepts.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}} However, there is no equivalent in the [[Napoleonic Code|French Civil Code]] or [[Roman law]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=C. M. Jr |date=1948 |title=The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens |journal=[[Virginia Law Review]] |volume=34 |issue=7 |pages=811–822|doi= 10.2307/1069695|jstor= 1069695}}</ref>
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===
Line 32 ⟶ 34:
===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 100 ⟶ 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)
| |||