South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of funding and legal representation in South Africa, they would be denied a fair trial on terms of equality with the defendant.
Held: Public Interest issues arising from the prosecution of the case should not prevent the court deciding whether a stay against action should be granted. The claimants’ right to an action in South Africa would be ineffective, and the case would be allowed to proceed in England. Public interest issues not relating to any private law interests of the parties should not affect that question.
Judges:
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Citations:
Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2000] UKHL 41, [2000] 4 All ER 268, [2000] 1 WLR 1545
Links:
Statutes:
European onvention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Lubbe and others v Cape Plc CA 24-Aug-1999
Although the court had previously decided to hear a multi-party case here, rather than in South Africa, the failure to disclose an impending group action was sufficient to transform the case leaving South Africa as clearly the most appropriate forum . .
Cited – Sim v Robinow 1892
The task of the court in deciding jurisdiction is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice: . .
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 . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Lubbe and others v Cape Plc CA 24-Aug-1999
Although the court had previously decided to hear a multi-party case here, rather than in South Africa, the failure to disclose an impending group action was sufficient to transform the case leaving South Africa as clearly the most appropriate forum . .
Cited – Mukta Gokaldas Hindocha (widow of C S Gheewala) and Others v Mahesh Shamjibhal Juthabhai Gheewala and Others PC 20-Nov-2003
PC (Jersey) The defendant sought a stay of the action, arguing it should be heard in another jurisdiction. He wanted the estate to be administered in Kenya, a jurisdiction which would apply Hindu laws of . .
Cited – Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam CA 1-Jul-2004
The claimant sought administration of her husband’s estate according to his domicile in England. The defendant claimed the estate under Islamic law, and that there had been no marriage, and that he had been domiciled in Saudi Arabia.
Held: The . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
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.
Litigation Practice, International, Human Rights
Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.135099
Comments are closed.