Jurisdiction Agreement Forum Non Conveniens

Approximately a year and a half after the start of the Australian proceedings, the applicant applied, according to CPR 6.36 and 6.37, to serve the first accused at the address of the second defendant in Brisbane. It appears that the applicant (on the basis that either English law would apply, or, if not, that the discount rate was a matter of procedure and would therefore be dealt with under English law) wished to benefit from the lower discount rate in England: see [5]. Master Fontaine responded to the request. The second defendant then sought the cancellation of the order and the removal of the abuse of process appeal. In particular, the second defendant argued that (a) the unauthorized door of CPR 6B, paragraph 9, point a), had not been completed and (b) was in any event not the appropriate forum for the appeal. It was alleged that the applicable law was the law of Western Australia and that the appropriate place to assert the appeal is in Western Australia. In addition, it was argued that the applicant had not complied with his advertising obligations with respect to the Australian procedure, since Master Fontaine had not been informed that the proceedings were still ongoing and (b) that a compensation and counter-plan plan had already been notified. Unsuitable Forum is not exclusively for the nations of the common law: the maritime courts of the Republic of Panama, although no common law jurisdiction, also have such power under more reserved conditions. [5] The availability of procedural funding in the foreign jurisdiction appeared only in Pike, but the main authority in this area is Connelly v RTZ Corporation plc [1998] AC 584. In Connelly, the applicant was a Scottish national employed by a uranium mining company in Namibia.

During his hiring, the applicant was exposed to silica and uranium which (he claimed) caused larynx cancer. The applicant was infallible and would not be able to obtain legal aid in Namibia to finance the litigation, whereas in England the applicant would have legal aid. Regarding the relevance of this factor for the analysis of the (non) forum of the Convenians, Lord Goff maintained at 873E-H: A concern often raised in the applications of the doctrine is the shopping forum or the choice of a court to gain an advantage in the proceedings. This concern is contrary to public policy to defer the choice of jurisdiction of a plaintiff in the event of claims for which there may be more than one appropriate jurisdiction. The underlying principles, such as mutual respect or complacency of foreign courts, also apply in civil regimes in the form of the legal doctrine of “lis alibi pendens”. Flaux J acknowledged that, if there is a non-exclusive English jurisdiction clause, a defendant must argue strong reasons why England is not a comfortable forum (which was not foreseeable at the time of the agreement) before the court asserts that the right to bring an action in the country indicated should not be applied. Some commentators in the United Kingdom argue, however, that the FNC rules could continue to apply in cases where the other procedures are not in one Member State, but that this remains uncertain. What is certain is that a Scottish court can consider its procedure in favour of the courts in England or Northern Ireland on the basis of the FNC, as this can regulate the internal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

[13] We therefore assume that, in the coming years, the main battlefield will be the second (“serious issue to try” and the third (forum (not) conveniens) of the CPR 6.36 and 6.37 survey.

Comments are closed.