Talk:Forum non conveniens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Latin (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Modifications[edit]

Some of the new material is disputed. For example, the assertion of the origin being in Scotland. If this is true, please quote the authority before the U.S. decision in 1801. The assertion that Quebec has a non-standard approach is wrong. I have included the relevant Canadian material. The failure to distinguish lis alibi pendens as the alternative approach is also problematic. I have begun a new page on lis pendens to remedy this. There also seems to be confusion between jurisdiction rules and choice of law rules as in the function of residence /habitual residence. Because the asumption might be that England, by virtue of it being a common law country, might still use the doctrine, I think it inappropriate to move the result of the Owusu case to the lower EU section. I am still unhappy with the version left on the "public" page and I am considering it further. David91 19:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have now revised the material. Hopefully, it is more comprehensive now. David91 18:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I clarified a portion of the U.S. section on FNC to provide the general standard (that a determination is made at the outset if there are alternate jurisdictions available). I did not include that there are currently only two cases I know if in the U.S. that don't apply this standard (NY and argably RI). I figured that might be outside the scope of the article but can clarify if needed. I also deleted some unnecessary references to other jurisdictions under the US component as they were not relevant to US FNC discussion. Gorjus 16:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David about Owusu etc and will try to edit it further. Also, one of the subheadings is 'UK Law' which is just stupid. Don't confuse Scots Law and English law! Inselaffe1984 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed language indicating the Supreme Court affirmed the 2nd Circuit's decision in the Coca-Cola case. The Supreme Court does not affirm a decision by denying a writ of certiorari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrintigers (talkcontribs) 16:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The section about Texas not referencing Forum non conveniens in product cases should be updated. Texas does recognize FNC so long as the plaintiff is not a legal Texas Residet. Texas civil practice & remedies Code Sec. 71.051
I removed the translation of forum non conveniens as "inconvenient". I would have to see some good authority to say that is true in order to overrule the many cases which say that convenience is not a factor. Even though another forum may be more convenient, there is not authority to say the case would be transferred there if it was not deemed to be in the best interests of the parties or was said to best secure the ends of justice.

Forum non conveniens -- is not about jurisdiction[edit]

The article says that forum non conveniens concerns jurisdiction. Does it? It seems more accurate to say that it is about the ability of a court to choose not to hear a case -- even though it has the jurisdiction to do so -- due to the inconvenience of the forum for some of the parties.

I would have to agree. FNC is a court discretionary power to refuse to hear a proceeding. It's easy to confuse with the jurisdiction analysis because it's so similar. --PullUpYourSocks 12:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I think it is impossible to mention one without the other, at least at English law (no idea how it goes in the US). For example, it is impossible to get service out of the jurisdiction - therefore effectively extending the court's juristiction - without England being the forum conveniens. Inselaffe1984 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Can someone please add an IPA pronunciation to this article? Thanks, Selket Talk 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Only in common law countries???[edit]

The rule might exist in most common law countries, but I think it is important to know that a lot of civil law countries have a similar rule. In Norway, the civil procedure code (from january 2008) have a similar rule. This is a rule which up until this year was something the courts developed to find "the natural forum" for the case". Then the rule was codified, the legislator actually said the courts should look to Forum non conveniens in Scotland/England to develope the rule further. It also exist a similar rule in Sweden.

It is not the same rule, but has similar principle: To find the most suitable court for the case to get a just result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carors (talkcontribs) 11:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)