Forum non conveniens—principles


Published by a UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ Dispute Resolution expert
Practice notes

Forum non conveniens—principles


Published by a UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ Dispute Resolution expert

Practice notes
imgtext

This Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear a dispute and may be applied during a number of different types of applications.

For guidance on other aspects of forum non conveniens, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners.

Note: this Practice Note refers to the following judgments:

  1. •

    Privy Council decision in AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel. In some law reports, this judgment is referred to as Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel

  2. •

    Supreme Court decision in Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. Note that the Court of Appeal decision in that case was Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL

What is forum non conveniens?

This is a common law doctrine that

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related legal acts:
Key definition:
Investment definition
What does Investment mean?

An investment will typically mean any type of property or interest held within the territory of the host state. This will often extend far beyond 'obvious' property, such as real estate or shares in a local company, to (depending upon the circumstances) other interests such as rights under a contract, intellectual property rights and private loans. As with the concept of 'investor,' in the modern commercial world what does and does not qualify as investment can be a complex question. The definition of 'investment' will vary between BITs.

Read more

Popular documents

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Key elements are

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdiction

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdictionThis Practice Note considers the position under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) where enforcement proceedings for a foreign judgment are brought in the courts of England and Wales and there

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreementsThis Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed.For

Rome I—parties fail to choose the applicable law

Rome I—parties fail to choose the applicable lawThis Practice Note considers the application of Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, commonly known as Rome I, to circumstances in which the parties have not chosen the applicable law. It considers the law