P 1 Aivarf 5485 SV 851 FGR 5 P 5637

17/5/2016 Forum non conveniens

MARCO PIST IS

Forum non conveniens

The doctrine of forum non conveniens originated in Scotland in the nineteenth century but largely
developed in United States of America. In America a court, in order to stay an action, must take into account
both the private interest of parties and the public interest of the forum State.[1]
In England, the idea of forum non conveniens was largely limited until 1973[2] when the House of
Lords changed radically its position in The Atlantic Star[3]. The case concerned two vessels from Holland
that had a collision in Belgian waters. Due to the fact the before 1973 the only way for a court to stay actions
was in case of vexatious or oppressive litigation or abuse of process the Court of Appeal refused the stay
finding that none of these situations arose[4]. Surprisingly the House of Lords redefined the concept of
vexatious or oppressive litigation and abuse of process in order to widen the possibility to stay actions in a
greater number of cases. Lord Reid accused the Court of Appeal of parochialism and chauvinism and the rest
of the House of Lords[5] agreed with such a change in order to achieve the desire outcome[6].
Subsequently, the English doctrine of forum non conveniens was been unclear for a relatively short
period of time, because The Atlantic Star had simply created a brandnew philosophy useing old vocabulary
and conceptual apparatus[7]. In 1978, in MacShannon v Rockware Glass Ltd, the House of Lords in the
word of Lord Salmon stated: "the real test of [whether to grant a stay] depends upon what the court in its
discretion considers that justice demands". This test is preferable to the test of whether the plaintiff has
behaved 'vexatiously' or 'oppressively' on a socalled liberal interpretation of those words. With respect, it is
extremely difficult to interpret them liberally without emasculating them and completely destroying their true
meaning[8]. Almost unanimously the House of Lords agreed that the concept had to be changed. However,
English judges tended not to use the new words of forum non conveniens preferring for a more open
minded interpretation of the concept of oppression, vexation and abuse. It was only 1984 when Lord
Diplock , in The Abidin Daver, was able to say "My Lords, the essential change in the attitude of the English
courts to pending or prospective litigation in foreign jurisdictions that has been achieved stepbystep during
the last 10 years as a result of the successive decisions of this House�I think the time is now ripe to
acknowledge frankly it is, in the field of law with which this appeal is concerned, indistinguishable from the
Scottish legal doctrine of forum non conveniens�[9].
In Spiliada Maritime Corp. v Cansulex Ltd[10] the House of Lords, through Lord Goff, summarized the
English approach to the doctrine of forum non conveniens stating the following rules:

a) The English judges will have to decline jurisdiction when a trial is likely to be more suitable
elsewhere for the interests of all the parties and for the benefit of justice. Of course the defendant
must show to the court that another forum with these characteristics is available[11].
http://www.judicium.it/old_site/news/pistis01.html 1/11
b) The second issue pointed out by Lord Goff concerns the burden of proof. It is in fact the
defendant who must prove that there is a clear or distinctly more appropriate place to handle the
trial[12].
c) The factors that a court must consider in order to decide which is the more appropriate forum are
legion. The weight to be given to these factors is normally discretionary. There is not a complete
list of the factors that a court must take into account in deciding the question. However, some of
the most important guidelines are the availability of witnesses, the law applicable to the
transaction, the residence of the parties or the place where the parties carry on business and the
possibility for the plaintiff to obtain justice in the foreign jurisdiction. With reference to this point
also the special competence or expertise of a particular court must be taken into account in order
to decide whether an alternative forum is more appropriate. The weight to be given to these
factors is for the court to decide on casebycase basis.
d) If there is any circumstance by reason of which a claimant could not obtain justice in a foreign
country the court will not grant a stay[13]. Furthermore, in order to help the claimant to preserve
some of the legal advantages of the English forum sometimes it is considered more appropriate to
decline English jurisdiction on condition of a security posted by the defendant. For the same
reasons the defendant might also be asked by the English court, for instance, to waive applicable
limitation periods or to agree to other stipulations.
The same Lord Goff, in Connelly v RTZ Corp. plc[14], pointed out the following new points:
a) The general absence of some kind of legal aid is not a sufficient justification for the refusal of a
stay because it should not be forgotten that financial assistance for litigation is not necessarily
regarded as essential, even in sophisticated legal systems. It was not widely available in this
country until 1949[15].
b) The legitimate personal or judicial advantage for the plaintiff in proceeding in England is not
considered a decisive factor: a general principle may be derived, which is that, if a clearly more
appropriate forum overseas has been identified, generally speaking the plaintiff will have to take that
forum as he finds it, even if it is in certain respects less advantageous to him than the English forum.
He may, for example, have to accept lower damages, or do without the more generous English
system of discovery. The same must apply to court procedure, including the rules of evidence,
applicable in the foreign forum. Only if the plaintiff can establish that substantial justice cannot be done
in the appropriate forum, will the court refuse to grant a stay[16].

It is well established that forum non conveniens has replaced in England the ancient rule of lis alibi
pendens. On the other hand, the Brussels and Lugano Conventions and the more recent EC Council
Regulation No 44/2001[17] rely on the rule of lis alibi pendens, so that the set of rules described in Spillada
are now subject to a narrow application. It is outside the scope of this essay to explain whether there is still a
place for the application of the forum non conveniens rule[18] so that it is sufficient to underline that for the
judgements between the European Member State most of the time the rule of the Regulation shall prevail.
Article 27 of the Regulation which substitutes article 21 of the old Conventions, following the rule of lis
alibi pendens, states:

�1. Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the
courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its
proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.
2. Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, any court other than the court first seised shall
decline jurisdiction in favour of that court�. The interpretation of this article can create problems in
establishing whether proceedings involves the same parties, particularly in light of the fact that much
international litigation involves big corporations with multiple subsidiaries in different countries. In The
Tatry[19] case the European Court stated that article 21 applied only in the case where the identity of parties
is completely the same but this does not entirely solve the problem[20]. It has also been established that the
interpretation of the words "the same cause of action" must be independent from any national scheme[21] and
this interpretation as well may cause difficulties. Another problem concerns when exactly a court can be
considered seised and the European Court stated that the case has to be definitely pending[22]. On the other
hand, article 30 of the new Regulation makes an attempt to solve the problem stating: �For the purposes of
this Section, a court shall be deemed to be seised:
1. at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the
court, provided that the plaintiff has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have
service effected on the defendant, or
2. if the document has to be served before being lodged with the court, at the time when it is received by the
authority responsible for service, provided that the plaintiff has not subsequently failed to take the steps he
was required to take to have the document lodged with the court�.

The rule of lis alibi pendens and in particular the aboveexamined article 27 of the EC Regulation
can be readily criticised because it appears to encourage a courtrace. The parties can find particularly
advantageous to get their forum first in order, for example, to have the case examined from the court of their
own countries. Due to article 27, even in a case where England is the natural forum, the trial may be held in a
different Member State because the plaintiff goes to court in that state first. It can be argued that there is
always a possibility for the defendant to obtain a negative declaration[23] but such a remedy does not solve
the problem of the race to the court, be the defendant or the claimant to welcome this race.

Moreover, article 28 of the EC Regulation, substituting article 22 of the Brussels Convention states:

�1. Where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the
court first seised may stay its proceedings.
2. Where these actions are pending at first instance, any court other than the court first seised may also, on
the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seised has jurisdiction over the actions
in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof.
3. For the purposes of this Article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that
it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from
separate proceedings�.

Article 28 gives only the possibility to courts to stay their proceedings without giving any explanation
about how to use this choice. Of course English court can rely on the principles of forum non conveniens in
exercising this choice but the substantial reason why it has been decided to offer a discretion to the court is
still obscure and in contrast with the aim of the Regulation.
Article 29, which substitutes article 23 of the former Brussels Convention, refers to the rare possibility in
which more than one court has exclusive jurisdiction and it also follows the rule of the �first come first
served� assisting again the courtrace. The Court of Appeal[24] has stated that in case of exclusive
jurisdiction of an English court under the rules of the Convention, the English court shall prevail over article
old 21 and consequently over new article 29. Unfortunately even in this clear case the question whether the
exclusive jurisdiction shall prevail is not entirely free from doubt.
The reason why the rule of forum non conveniens, seen by English lawyer as an improvement in the
rule of jurisdiction, has not been accepted by lawyers from civil law jurisdictions[25] is based principally on
the main differences between the two systems. It has been argued by civil lawyers that the rule of forum non
conveniens does not provide certainty and predictability. It is likely that exactly the opposite is true because
in forum non conveniens the defendant will always know that, even if the plaintiff runs to the court first, he
still has the chance to see the case handled by the most appropriate court and, even if there is not a list of
factors to rely on for the decision, the choice of the court can be predicted in advance. In other words, most
of the time it is possible for the defendant to predict which court will be chosen as the most appropriate.
More frightening for civil lawyers is the lack of legislation and it has been argued that forum non conveniens
can unfortunately lead to arbitrary decisions. Even if the opinion about the predictability of the doctrine can
differ, the general structure of forum non conveniens is clear and wellestablished[26].
Unfortunately the Latin words of the principle does not help civil lawyers in understanding the real
value of the doctrine because they can create the impression that is only convenient for the court rather than
helpful to provide a better decision[27].
It has been argued[28] that a problem arises where an English court stays its proceedings in favour of
another court and the second then declines jurisdiction. This can be considered a false problem and in order
to explanation why this is so we can rely on two considerations. First of all, the English court has merely
stayed its proceedings and has not declined jurisdiction. If it is discovered that an action cannot be brought in
the other country there is no longer a more appropriate forum available and, in consequence of this, an
application can be made to the English court to continue the proceedings in England. In second instance, the
availability of the other court to handle the case has certainly been considered by the English court before the
English proceedings were stayed[29] and therefore it is a problem, which is unlikely to arise in practice.
It has also been argued by civil lawyers that the English courts act in their own motion in order to decide
whether or not to stay their proceedings[30]. The court directs the process in civil law systems and there is
often some kind of identification with the concept of state sovereignty. On the other, hand, in England but also
in United States of America and in most of the common law countries, proceedings are mostly concerned
with the interest of the parties and it is quite rare that questions of sovereignty or public interest arise[31].
As we have noted, the reasons why forum non coveniens in England is considered a very helpful
tool in order to help the needs of justice is not well appreciated by civil lawyers. There are certainly many
reasons for this hostility but two considerations must be taken into account: first, the verbal and adversarial
structure of the English civil procedure and second, the different role played by English courts in international
litigation[32]. The use of oral witnesses in England is much more common than in civil law countries and two
factors taken strongly into consideration by English court in order to stay an action are the location of
witnesses and the location of other evidence. The transportation of witnesses can considerably increase the
cost of proceedings and even the inspection of documents in another country can be very expensive[33].
Even if frequently, in civil law countries, the crossexamination of the witnesses and experts does not occur, in
civil law countries witnesses and expert play an important role and the possibility to use a discretionary tool in
deciding which court is better, could be very useful in this context. Another problem arises when it is
necessary to consider the content of foreign law. English courts treats the foreign law simply as a question of
fact where, even if civil law systems does not use the same approach that use to identify the domestic law, its
judge can investigate the content of foreign law by himself. In Germany for example, the judge can identify the
content of foreign law asking an opinion from an institute of comparative studies and in Italy the judge can
investigate the content of the foreign law by himself with or without the help of experts[34]. However, even if
the practical reasons that lead to the introduction of the doctrine of forum non conveniens are mainly
reduced in civil law countries, where there is a less rigorous use of oral witnesses, it can be argued that a
more discretional approach could be welcome even in this very different background. A further matter
concerns the differences between the way cases are treated by English courts and by most of the other
jurisdictions. In England and Wales, large international disputes are mostly handled by London courts or go to
arbitration where in most other countries the international claims are smaller and, more often than not, there
are only two parties involved. Nevertheless, this is changing relatively fast. If years ago international litigation
on a large scale was a prerogative of the English courts, these days big international transactions not involving
the courts of London are becoming much more common all around the world. Due to this, even if explicit
references to the forum non conveniens doctrine are relatively rare in civil law countries, some more
discretional techniques of interpretation have been developed. In Germany, for example, although the general
approach to forum non conveniens was generally hostile[35], a couple of monographs relatively favourable
to the new doctrine have appeared since 1960s[36]. In France, occasionally courts have declined jurisdiction
because the case could be handled in a more suitable forum[37] and still in France there are a few advocates
of the new doctrine. In the Netherlands there is a situation where one may speak of forum non conveniens:
second paragraph of article 429 the Dutch code of civil procedure, in fact, states tha the court has no
jurisdiction if the petition has insufficient connection with the Netherlands. Moreover it has been said that
Dutch law has nowadays adopted the doctrine of forum non convieniens lock, stock and barrel[38] so that
even the deletion of article 429 (2) would not change anything.
The great advantage of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is the possibility to give to the courts a
discretionary power in order to prevent the situation in which a case is not handled in the most appropriate or
so called natural court. This discretionary power prevents the waste of money due to transportation of
witnesses and to the examination of foreign documents and also tends to prevent injustices sometimes created
by the rule of the first seised court. Unfortunately it is exactly the idea of a discretionary power that scares
more civil lawyers for whom the choice of jurisdiction is an expression of public power and it does not easily
fit with a discretionary stay of proceedings. Another objection made by civil lawyers is based on the
fundamental right of the plaintiff to access to the court individuated by the legal system and the exercise of a
discretional power in order to decide whether or not to stay proceedings is considered detestable[39].
However, things may well change and a different approach can be noted in The Hague Convention on
International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters.
Article 21 (1) of the draft states, apparently repeating the Brussels Convention and the EC Regulation states
that when the same parties are engaged in proceedings in courts of different Contracting States and when
such proceedings are based on the same causes of action, irrespective of the relief sought, the court second
seised shall suspend the proceedings The title of the article is �Lis pendens� and it might seem clear that
the approach of the new Convention repeats the rules of the EC Regulation. However, following undoubtedly
a very different approach article 22 (1) provides that in exceptional circumstances the court may, on
application by a party, suspend its proceedings if in that case it is clearly inappropriate for that court to
exercise jurisdiction and if a court of another State has jurisdiction and is clearly more appropriate to resolve
the dispute. Such application must be made no later than at the time of the first defence of the merits.
Paragraph 2 of article 22, recalling the English doctrine and in particular Lord Goff in Spiliada continues: The
court shall take into account, in particular:
a) any inconvenience to the parties in view of their habitual residence;
b) the nature and location of the evidence, including documents and witnesses, and the procedures
for obtaining such evidence;
c) applicable limitation or prescription periods;
c) the possibility of obtaining recognition and enforcement of any decision on the merits.

Paragraph 4 deals with the possibility for the first court seised to ask some form of security as we have
seen in Spiliada and paragraph 5 provides that when the court has suspended its proceedings under
paragraph 1,
a) it shall decline to exercise jurisdiction if the court of the other State exercises jurisdiction, or if the
plaintiff does not bring the proceedings in that State within the time specified by the court; or
b) it shall proceed with the case if the court of the other State decides not to exercise jurisdiction.

The Preliminary Document No 18 of February 2002[40] underlines that The Convention as currently
drafted does not allow for the possibility of applying forum non conveniens in situations in which there exists
an exclusive choice of court clause because the special rules do not apply when the jurisdiction of the court
seised is not founded on an exclusive choice of court agreement[41]. Even if the rules of the proposal are
stricter than the English rules it can be definitely assumed that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is
hopefully going to be accepted even by civil law jurisdictions.
As we have seen the mechanistic rules of lis alibi pendens give priority to the court first seised without
accepting the major degree of discretion offered by the theory of forum non conveniens. The rules of the
latter doctrine permit the better establishment of the needs of justice by choosing the most appropriate forum
in relation to different cases where there is of course the possibility of choice between more than one
appropriate court. Some of the practical reasons why it is undoubtedly better to offer the defendant a tool as
to resist to the choice of jurisdiction of the plaintiff has been well describe by David W. Robertson and his
words bear repetition " First a defendant may be subjected to grave injustice by being sued in a court far
from the defendant's domicile, from the situs of the events that gave rise to the dispute, or from the sources of
the evidence necessary to resolve the dispute. Second, the absence of a check on a transnational plaintiffs'
initial forum choices could cause certain courts to become overcrowded, with corresponding detriment to
domestic litigants' need for speedy justice, to the resources of the country where the court sits, and arguably
to the judges themselves. Third, when a court in Country X decides a case which is more intimately
connected with Country Y, Country Y's public policies may be thwarted or its sovereignty offended[42]".
It can be also useful to remark again that the doctrine of forum non conveniens did not originate in
England and that English law adopted it quite recently for practical exigencies. This change has been
welcomed in England by the major part of the judges and by many writers. For the same reason it could be
considered an improvement under the civil law jurisdictions giving them a possibility to find a more flexible
approach without destroying their exigency of certainty and predictability. For these reasons it is to be hoped
that the new rules of article 22 of the draft of The Hague Convention will become the new standard
international law in relation to the choice of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and that this will also
lead to the introduction of a remarkable common law doctrine in civil law jurisdictions.

SOURCES CONSULTED

EU LEGISLATION

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

CONVENTIONS

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
Brussels 1968

Lugano Conventions, Lugano 1988

The Hague Proposal of Convention on International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and
Commercial Matters

CASES

Connelly v RTZ Corp. plc [1998] A.C. 854

Continental Bank N.A. v Aeokos Cia Naviera SA [1994] 1 W.L.R. 588

Drouot Assurances SA v Consolidated Metallurgical Indistries [1998] E.C.R. I3057 Case c351/96

Gubisch Maschinenfabrik AG v Palombo [1987] E.C.R. 4861 Case 144/86

Harrods Ltd v Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd (No.2) [1992] Ch. 72

Logan v. bank of Scotland [1906] 1 K.B. 141 (C.A.)

MacShannon v Rockware Glass Ltd [1987] A.C. 795

Mengatti c. Soc. Metallurgica Nava Stefano e Giuseppina Clunet 1989, 96 Cour d'Appel Paris, 17
November 1987

Spiliada Maritime Corp. v Cansulex Ltd [1987] A.C. 460

The Abidin Daver [1984] A.C. 398

The Atlantic Star [1974] A.C. 436

The Jalakrishna [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 628

The Tatry [1994] E.C.R. I5439 Case c406/92

Turner v Grovit [1999] 3 W.L.R. 794

Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1991) 171 C.L.R. 538

Zelger v Salintrini (No. 2) [1984] E.C.R. 2397 Case 129/83

BOOKS

KROPHOLLER J.K., Handbuch des Internationalen Zilverfahrensrechst (Tubingen 1982)

MCCLEAN David, Morris: The Conflict of Laws (London, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 2000)

SCHLOSSER P., Praxis des internationalen Privat und Verfhrensrecht (Munich 1983)

SCHRODER J., Internazionale Zustandigkeit (Opladen 1971)

ARTICLES

FAWCETT J., Trial in England or Abroad: The Underlying Policy Considerations (1989) ) O.J.L.S. 205

KENNET Wendy, Forum non conveniens in Europe [1995] C.L.J. 552

LAGARDE P., Le principe de proximit� dans le droit international priv� contemporain, Hague Recueil
1986 I 11

ROBERTSON David W., Forum non conveniens in America and England: 'A rather fantastic fiction'
(1987) 103 L.Q.R. 398

RUBINOSAMMARTANO M., Il giudice nazionale di fronte alla legge straniera, RDIPP 1991, 315

VERHEUL J.P., The forum (non) conveniens in English and Dutch Law and under some international
conventions (1986) 35 I.C.L.Q. 413

[1] David McClean, Morris: The Conflict of Laws (London, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 2000) at 117118
[2] Logan v. bank of Scotland [1906] 1 K.B. 141 (C.A.)
[3] The Atlantic Star [1974] A.C. 436
[4] The Atlantic Star [1973] Q.B. at 381382, 384385, 387388
[5] See the judgements of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Kilbrandon in The Atlantic Star [1974] A.C. at 467
469 and 477478
[6] See David W. Robertson Forum non conveniens in America and England: 'A rather fantastic fiction'
(1987) 103 L.Q.R. 398 at 411
[7] See David W. Robertson Forum non conveniens in America and England: 'A rather fantastic fiction'
(1987) 103 L.Q.R. 398 at 411
[8] MacShannon v Rockware Glass Ltd [1987] A.C. 795 at 819
[9] The Abidin Daver [1984] A.C. 398 at 411
[10] Spiliada Maritime Corp. v Cansulex Ltd [1987] A.C. 460
[12] For a different point of view see the leading Australian case Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd
(1991) 171 C.L.R. 538
[13] This particolar situation arose in The Jalakrishna [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 628
[14] Connelly v RTZ Corp. plc [1998] A.C. 854
[15] Connelly v RTZ Corp. plc [1998] A.C. 854 at 873. Read also the dissenting opinion of Lord Hoffman
at 875877
[16] Connelly v RTZ Corp. plc [1998] A.C. 854 at 872. See also, for instance, Re Harrods (Bueons Aires)
Ltd (No. 2) [1992] Ch. 72
[17] Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
[18] See Harrods Ltd v Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd (No.2) [1992] Ch. 72. For a complete analysis of the
matter with reference to the consequences of the case see Wendy Kennett Forum non conveniens in
Europe [1995] C.L.J. 552 at 561569
[19] Case c406/92 The Tatry [1994] E.C.R. I5439
[20] See e.g. Case c351/96 Drouot Assurances SA v Consolidated Metallurgical Indistries [1998]
E.C.R. I3057 and Turner v Grovit [1999] 3 W.L.R. 794
[21] See for instance Case 144/86 Gubisch Maschinenfabrik AG v Palombo [1987] E.C.R. 4861
[22] Case 129/83 Zelger v Salintrini (No. 2) [1984] E.C.R. 2397
[24] Continental Bank N.A. v Aeokos Cia Naviera SA [1994] 1 W.L.R. 588
[25] See Wendy Kennett Forum non conveniens in Europe [1995] C.L.J. 552
[26] Wendy Kennett Forum non conveniens in Europe [1995] C.L.J. 552 at 555
[28] See for instance J.K. Kropholler, Handbuch des Internationalen Zilverfahrensrechst (Tubingen
1982), vol. I, ch. III, p. 282
[29] Wendy Kennett Forum non conveniens in Europe [1995] C.L.J. 552 at 555 citing P. Lagarde, Le
principe de proximit� dans le droit international priv� contemporain, Hague Recueil 1986 I 11 at 154
[30] See Wendy Kennett Forum non conveniens in Europe [1995] C.L.J. 552 at 556
[31] J. Fawcett, Trial in England or Abroad: The Underlying Policy Considerations (1989) ) O.J.L.S. 205
[32] See Wendy Kennett Forum non conveniens in Europe [1995] C.L.J. 552 at 556
[33] See for example Re Harrods (Bueons Aires) Ltd (No. 2) [1992] Ch. 72
[34] M. RubinoSammartano, Il giudice nazionale di fronte alla legge straniera, RDIPP 1991, 315
[35] See for example P. Schlosser, Praxis des internationalen Privat und Verfhrensrecht (Munich
1983) at 285
[36] See for example J. Schroder, Internazionale Zustandigkeit (Opladen 1971)
[37] Cour d'Appel Paris, 17 November 1987 Mengatti c. Soc. Metallurgica Nava Stefano e Giuseppina
Clunet 1989, 96
[38] See J.P. Verheul, The forum (non) conveniens in English and Dutch Law and under some international
conventions (1986) 35 I.C.L.Q. 413 at 417
[40] See The Preliminary Document No 18 of February 2002 submitted by Avril D. Haines
[41] See article 22(1) of the Draft of the Hague Convention on International Jurisdiction and Foreign
Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters
[42] David W. Robertson Forum non conveniens in America and England: 'A rather fantastic fiction' (1987)
103 L.Q.R. 398

P 1 Aivarf 5485 SV 851 FGR 5 P 5637

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

P 1 Aivarf 5485 SV 851 FGR 5 P 5637

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

17/5/2016 Forum non conveniens

S-ar putea să vă placă și