Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: jstor, doi. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 1163/2196 |
|||
Line 14:
===Historical origin===
Scholars and jurists seem to find a Scottish origin prior to the first American use of the concept.<ref>http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/decisions/Publishedopinions/96-01284.HTM</ref><ref>http://www.judicium.it/news/pistis01.html#_edn1 {{Dead link|date=February 2022}}</ref><ref>http://works.bepress.com/context/graydon_staring/article/1008/type/native/viewcontent/</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> Some writers see the doctrine of FNC as having developed from an earlier doctrine of ''forum non competens'' ("non-competent forum"). Many early cases in the U.S. and Scotland involving FNC were cases 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.
The doctrine of FNC originated in the [[United States]] in ''Willendson v. Forsoket'' [29 Fed Cas 1283 (DC Pa 1801)] (No 17,682) where a federal district court in [[Pennsylvania]] declined to exercise jurisdiction over a [[Denmark|Danish]] sea captain who was being sued for back wages by a Danish seaman, stating that "[i]f any differences should hereafter arise, it must be settled by a Danish tribunal." In [[Scotland]], the concept is first recorded in ''MacMaster v. MacMaster'' (Judgment of 7 June 1833, Sess, Scot 11 Sess Cas, First Series 685.)
Line 20:
===United Kingdom===
The doctrine has limited application in most civil law jurisdictions which prefer ''[[lis alibi pendens]]'', although the principle behind FNC is acknowledged. 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:
{{
The case of ''Owusu v Jackson and Others''<ref>http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2005/C28102.html</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:
{{
However, some UK commentators argue that the FNC rules may still apply to cases where the other proceedings are not in a Member state but this remains uncertain. What is certain is that 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>
Line 38:
The law of the province of Quebec, Canada is slightly different. The Quebec Civil Code 1994, at art. 3135 c.c.q., provides:
{{
The practical effects are identical to any other jurisdiction but the wording used by the code is different. For decisions applying art. 3135 c.c.q., see ''H.L. Boulton & Co. S.C.C.A. v. Banque Royale du Canada'' (1995) R.J.Q. 213 (Quebec. Supr. Ct.); ''Lamborghini (Canada) Inc. v. Automobili Lamborghini S.P.A.'' (1997) R.J.Q. 58 (Quebec. C.A.); ''Spar Aerospace v. American Mobile Satellite'' (2002) 4 S.C.R. 205, and ''Grecon Dimter Inc. v. J.R. Normand Inc.'' (2004) R.J.Q. 88 (Quebec. C.A.)
Line 74:
==Europe==
The doctrine of FNC gained little footing in the civil law world, which prefers the approach of ''[[lis alibi pendens]]'' (see Articles 21-23 Brussels Convention). The civil law jurisdictions generally base jurisdiction on the residence of the defendant and on [[choice of law]] rules favouring the [[habitual residence]] of the parties, the ''[[lex situs]]'', and the ''[[lex loci solutionis]]'' (applying ''actor sequitur forum rei''). This reflects an expectation that a defendant should be sued at his "own" courts, modified to reflect different priorities in certain types of case. As an example of this expectation, Article 2 [[Brussels I Regulation]] (as well as the corresponding Lugano conventions) provides:
{{
Subject to the provisions of this Convention, persons domiciled in a Contracting State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State.
| |||