Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens
📘 Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens
🔍 Definition
Forum Non Conveniens is a discretionary doctrine that allows a court to decline jurisdiction over a case, even if it has the legal authority to hear it, because there is a more appropriate or convenient forum (court or jurisdiction) available to hear the case.
🔁 Literally means “inconvenient forum” in Latin.
⚖️ Purpose
To prevent abuse of court processes and ensure that justice is best served by having the case tried in a jurisdiction:
That has a closer connection to the facts of the case,
Where the trial would be more convenient for parties and witnesses,
Where local law and public interest are more appropriately applied.
🧩 When is it Applied?
The court has jurisdiction, but another court is more suitable.
Common in cases involving international or multi-jurisdictional disputes (e.g., torts, contracts, corporate disputes).
Often used to prevent “forum shopping”, where plaintiffs choose a court believed to be more favorable.
🧱 Key Factors Considered by Courts
Courts weigh public and private interest factors, including:
✅ Private Interest Factors:
Convenience for parties and witnesses
Access to evidence
Cost of obtaining witnesses
Enforceability of judgment
✅ Public Interest Factors:
Administrative burden on the court
Interest of the forum in the case
Application of foreign law
Avoidance of complex conflict-of-law issues
🌍 Jurisdictional Approaches
1. Common Law Countries
Widely used, especially in UK, USA, Canada, Australia.
Courts have broad discretion.
A case is dismissed only if an alternative forum is clearly more appropriate (per Spiliada Maritime Corp v. Cansulex Ltd, UK, 1987).
2. Civil Law Countries
Generally do not recognize the doctrine.
Courts are more likely to hear the case if they have jurisdiction under their domestic rules.
🧾 Important Case Example
Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd. (UK, 1987)
Set the modern test in common law jurisdictions.
Held that the burden is on the defendant to prove that another forum is clearly more appropriate.
If no such alternative exists, the court should not decline jurisdiction.
🚫 Limits of the Doctrine
Cannot be used where the alternative forum does not offer justice (e.g., risk of unfair trial or human rights violations).
Some jurisdictions have statutory limits on when forum non conveniens can be invoked.
📝 Summary
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| What is it? | A court’s refusal to hear a case due to a better forum elsewhere |
| Why used? | To serve justice, avoid inconvenience, and prevent forum shopping |
| Key factors | Convenience, connection to the dispute, applicable law |
| Common use | In complex cross-border disputes |
| Not accepted in | Most civil law countries |
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments