BD Inglis, 1964
The author explores the Anglo-Common Law distinction between forum conveniens, as a prerequisite to assuming jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens, as a defence plea. An analysis of relevant case law illustrates that, in both forum conveniens and forum non conveniens scenarios, the same factors are considered and therefore forum conveniens constitutes the true basis of jurisdiction.
BD Inglis, 1965
With reference to the English law of jurisdiction, the author draws a clear distinction between forum conveniens as a prerequisite for leave to serve abroad (and the establishment of jurisdiction) and forum conveniens as a motion to strike out or stay an action after the defendant has been served within the jurisdiction, the latter having developed within the context of abuse of process proceedings. The author also explores the relationship between jurisdiction and choice of law, as well as the onus of proof in forum conveniens cases.
Elsabe Schoeman, 2010
The New Zealand High Court Rules in respect of service abroad without leave (r 6.27) now incorporate the “serious issue to be tried on the merits” test. This article examines the important difference between the “good arguable case” and “serious issue to be tried on the merits” tests using Lord Goff’s authoritative statements in Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran. The author urges the Courts to embrace Lord Goff’s clarification as an opportunity to provide certainty and accuracy in relation to the interpretation and application of the “serious issue to be tried on the merits” test.