26 U. Brit. Colum. L. Rev. 41 (1992)
Forum Non Conveniens in England, Australia and Japan: The Allocation of Jurisdiction in Transnational Litigation

handle is hein.journals/ubclr26 and id is 51 raw text is: FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN ENGLAND,
AUSTRALIA AND JAPAN: THE ALLOCATION OF
JURISDICTION IN TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION
ELLEN L. HAYESt
I. INTRODUCTION
As international trade in goods and services increases it is inevitable that
the instances of litigation having transnational elements will also in-
crease. Unfortunately there is no international civil procedure which
prescribes universal principles for the allocation ofjurisdiction in trans-
national cases. The matter is left for each state to fix the limit of its
judicial power for itself. Many states have established extremely broad
jurisdictional rules. Thus, the plaintiff in a transnational case will often
have a choice as to the country in which to institute proceedings.
Several jurisdictions have developed the doctrine of forum non conve-
niens to attempt to unilaterally deal with the allocation of transnational
jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court which
has jurisdiction over a defendant under municipal law      declines to
exercise it on the grounds that it is not the appropriate venue for the
action and that considerations ofjustice require that the plaintifflitigate
in another jurisdiction.
Two main reasons are usually advanced for the doctrine.' First, the
doctrine will curb forum shopping. Forum shopping was defined by
Lord Pearson2 as a plaintiff by-passing his natural forum and bringing
his action in some alien forum which would give him relief or benefits
which would not be available to him in his natural forum. It is thought
to be unfair to require a defendant to litigate in a forum which may be far
t Of Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto..
@ Ellen L. Hayes, 199z.
1 SeeA.G. Slater, Forum Non Conveniens AView From the Shop Floor (t988)104 LQ.Rev.
554 for a thoughtfil and critical review of the rationale of the modern doctrine.
2 Boys v. Chaplin 1971] A.C. 356 at 4o.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?