The court considered where the trial of the action should take place.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. Even though the rights sought to be protected were of a proprietary nature, where the rights could properly be said to have arisen under an English contract, the English court could use its discretion to assert jurisdiction. Though Russia might otherwise be the natural place for the trial of the action, the claimant had proper concerns for the risks he would face if he returned there for the case.
Waller LJ set out some of the elements required for jurisdiction under forum conveniens: ‘In my view the summary in the notes on page 22 of the White Book under CPR 6.37(4) Forum Conveniens summarises the position correctly:-
‘Subject to the differences set out below, the criteria that govern the application of the principle of forum conveniens where permission is sought to serve out of the jurisdiction are the same as those that govern the application of the principle of forum non conveniens where a stay is sought in respect of proceedings started within the jurisdiction. Those criteria are set out in The Spiliada . .:
(i) The burden is upon the claimant to persuade the court that England is clearly the appropriate forum for the trial of the action.
(ii) The appropriate forum is that forum where the case may most suitably be tried for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice.
(iii) One must consider first what is the ‘natural forum’; namely that with which the action has the most real and substantial connection. Connecting factors will include not only factors concerning convenience and expense (such as the availability of witnesses), but also factors such as the law governing the relevant transaction and the places where the parties reside and respectively carry on business.
(iv) In considering where the case can be tried most ‘suitably for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice’ ordinary English procedural advantages such as a power to award interest, are normally irrelevant as are more generous English limitation periods where the claimant has failed to act prudently in respect of a shorter limitation period elsewhere.
(v) If the court concludes at that stage that there is another forum which is apparently as suitable or more suitable than England, it will normally refuse permission unless there are circumstances by reason of which justice requires that permission should nevertheless be granted. In this inquiry the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, including circumstances which go beyond those taken into account when considering connecting factors with other jurisdictions. One such factor can be the fact, if established objectively by cogent evidence that the claimant will not obtain justice in the foreign jurisdiction. Other factors include the absence of legal aid or the ability to obtain contribution in the foreign jurisdiction.
(vi) Where a party seeks to establish the existence of a matter that will assist him in persuading the court to exercise its discretion in his favour, the evidential burden in respect of that matter will rest upon the party asserting it.’
Judges:
Waller, Moore-Bick LJJ, Sir John Chadwick
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 849, [2009] CP Rep 48, [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 456
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Cherney v Deripaska ComC 3-Jul-2008
Renewed application for leave to serve proceedings out of jurisdiction. The court considered a submission that a fair trial would not be possible in Russia: ‘An English court will approach with considerable circumspection any contention that a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 8-Apr-2011
The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had . .
Cited – Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others SC 10-Apr-2019
The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.368593
