Content deleted Content added
Rescuing 3 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.2 |
Updated the passage on Australia by including more precise citations, diversifying the sources, and rectifying some inaccuracies. |
||
Line 31:
===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===
| |||