The claimant sought an account from the defendant share broker for the proceeds of share transactions. The defendant said the matter should be tried in Hong Kong.
Held: The claimant must show a good arguable case. Here there was evidence to support the claimant’s assertion of the use of an address in England, and a case was therefore shown. There were clear English connections, and the contract was asserted to have been made in England. England was the forum conveniens.
Judges:
The Hon Mr Justice Goldring
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 458 (Ch)
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20, Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, Rome Convention 3
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Canada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others (2) CA 29-Oct-1997
The court looked at questions relating to domicile and jurisdiction; standard of proof, date to be determined and duties before service.
Held: The court is endeavouring to find an imprecise concept which reflects that the plaintiff must . .
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, Contract
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179918
