In defence of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

9 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article examines the doctrine of forum non conveniens as applied in Hong Kong, Australia, the US and Sweden, and considers the criticism that has been raised against the doctrine. The author argues that some of this criticism is valid, some of it is valid only in relation to some countries’ application of the doctrine, and some of the criticism is unfounded. The author concludes that the test applied in Hong Kong and most other common law jurisdictions - the clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum test - is the better option. The author goes on to make a number of other recommendations regarding the application of the doctrine, including the suggestion that the doctrine would benefit from being implemented in legislation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)395-420
Number of pages26
JournalHong Kong Law Journal
Volume35
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Fingerprint

doctrine
criticism
Hong Kong
common law
jurisdiction
Sweden
legislation

Cite this

@article{df200d12d77e4ca394467447d77445f7,
title = "In defence of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens",
abstract = "This article examines the doctrine of forum non conveniens as applied in Hong Kong, Australia, the US and Sweden, and considers the criticism that has been raised against the doctrine. The author argues that some of this criticism is valid, some of it is valid only in relation to some countries’ application of the doctrine, and some of the criticism is unfounded. The author concludes that the test applied in Hong Kong and most other common law jurisdictions - the clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum test - is the better option. The author goes on to make a number of other recommendations regarding the application of the doctrine, including the suggestion that the doctrine would benefit from being implemented in legislation.",
author = "Svantesson, {Dan Jerker B}",
year = "2005",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "395--420",
journal = "Hong Kong Law Journal",
issn = "0378-0600",
publisher = "Hong Kong Law Journal Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

In defence of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens. / Svantesson, Dan Jerker B.

In: Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2005, p. 395-420.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - In defence of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

AU - Svantesson, Dan Jerker B

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - This article examines the doctrine of forum non conveniens as applied in Hong Kong, Australia, the US and Sweden, and considers the criticism that has been raised against the doctrine. The author argues that some of this criticism is valid, some of it is valid only in relation to some countries’ application of the doctrine, and some of the criticism is unfounded. The author concludes that the test applied in Hong Kong and most other common law jurisdictions - the clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum test - is the better option. The author goes on to make a number of other recommendations regarding the application of the doctrine, including the suggestion that the doctrine would benefit from being implemented in legislation.

AB - This article examines the doctrine of forum non conveniens as applied in Hong Kong, Australia, the US and Sweden, and considers the criticism that has been raised against the doctrine. The author argues that some of this criticism is valid, some of it is valid only in relation to some countries’ application of the doctrine, and some of the criticism is unfounded. The author concludes that the test applied in Hong Kong and most other common law jurisdictions - the clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum test - is the better option. The author goes on to make a number of other recommendations regarding the application of the doctrine, including the suggestion that the doctrine would benefit from being implemented in legislation.

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 395

EP - 420

JO - Hong Kong Law Journal

JF - Hong Kong Law Journal

SN - 0378-0600

IS - 2

ER -