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 coparceny, but the substantial asset was in Jersey.
Held: The Royal Court was right in its view that Kenya is clearly a more appropriate forum than Jersey for the trial of Mahesh’s action, and that no compelling reason has been made out for rejecting Kenya on the ground that Mahesh (or any other party) cannot expect to obtain justice there.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Sir William Aldous
Citations:
[2003] UKHL 77
Links:
Citing:
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 – Lubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Wills and Probate
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188440