The availability of legal aid to a party is not part of criteria for choosing jurisdiction save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goff discussed the Spiliada case: ‘the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to grant a stay. For that purpose, he has to establish that there is another available forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the English forum in which jurisdiction has been founded by the plaintiff as of right. In considering that question, the court will look first to see what factors there are which point in the direction of another forum, ie connecting factors which indicate that it is with the other forum that the action has its most real and substantial connection. That is the first stage. However, even if the court concludes at that stage that the other forum is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, the court may nevertheless decline to grant a stay if persuaded by the plaintiff, on whom the burden of proof then lies, that justice requires that a stay should not be granted. That is the second stage.’
Lord Goff of Chievely
Times 04-Aug-1997, Gazette 28-Aug-1997,  UKHL 30,  AC 854,  4 All ER 335,  3 WLR 373
House of Lords, Bailii
Legal Aid Act 1988 31(1)(b)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc CA 29-Sep-1995
Availability of legal aid to a party is not a relevant consideration to rules of forum non conveniens. . .
Cited – Malekout v Medical Sickness Annuity and Life Assurance Society Limited CA 21-May-1998
The plaintiff sought to appeal against a stay of his action so that it could be referred to arbitration. His claim was under insurance policies containing clauses providing for arbitration of disputes.
Held: The judge had failed to take . .
Cited – Pacific International Sports Clubs Ltd v Soccer Marketing International Ltd and Others ChD 24-Jul-2009
The parties disputed ownership of shares in the football club Dynamo Kiev. Claims were to be made under Ukrainian company law and in equity. The claimant (a company registered in Mauritius) sought to proceed here. The defendants (largely companies . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 January 2021; Ref: scu.158908