Forum Non Conveniens doctrine – post Brexit applicability in transnational litigation

Q4 Social Sciences
Lukáš Grodl
{"title":"Forum Non Conveniens doctrine – post Brexit applicability in transnational litigation","authors":"Lukáš Grodl","doi":"10.5817/cpvp2022-2-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article follows the origin of the English forum non conveniens doctrine development in stay proceedings, its alterations, and applicable tests leading to CJEU’s decision in Owusu. Owusu ultimately forbade English courts to stay its proceedings and allow a “more convenient” forum to decide on the dispute merits in cases where the jurisdiction was conferred by the Brussels regime – not only concerning other EU courts but worldwide. With the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, a question appears whether English courts might again exercise this power. If affirmatory, the paper proceeds to assess various applicable, or presumably fitting, instruments, both for allocation of jurisdiction, and recognition and enforcement of judgments – Lugano Convention, Hague Convention 2005, and Hague Convention 2019. The paper also assesses how these instruments might interact with the use of forum non conveniens doctrine.","PeriodicalId":52263,"journal":{"name":"Casopis pro Pravni Vedu a Praxi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Casopis pro Pravni Vedu a Praxi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/cpvp2022-2-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article follows the origin of the English forum non conveniens doctrine development in stay proceedings, its alterations, and applicable tests leading to CJEU’s decision in Owusu. Owusu ultimately forbade English courts to stay its proceedings and allow a “more convenient” forum to decide on the dispute merits in cases where the jurisdiction was conferred by the Brussels regime – not only concerning other EU courts but worldwide. With the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, a question appears whether English courts might again exercise this power. If affirmatory, the paper proceeds to assess various applicable, or presumably fitting, instruments, both for allocation of jurisdiction, and recognition and enforcement of judgments – Lugano Convention, Hague Convention 2005, and Hague Convention 2019. The paper also assesses how these instruments might interact with the use of forum non conveniens doctrine.
论坛不方便原则——英国脱欧后在跨国诉讼中的适用性
本文介绍了英国法院不方便法院原则在中止诉讼中的起源、修改以及导致欧盟法院在奥乌苏作出裁决的适用测试。Owusu最终禁止英国法院搁置诉讼程序,并允许一个“更方便”的论坛来决定布鲁塞尔政权授予管辖权的案件中的争议案情——不仅涉及其他欧盟法院,而且涉及世界各地。随着英国退出欧盟,英国法院是否会再次行使这一权力似乎成了一个问题。如果是肯定的,本文将继续评估各种适用的或可能合适的文书,包括管辖权的分配、判决的承认和执行——《卢加诺公约》、《2005年海牙公约》和《2019年海牙公约。该文件还评估了这些文书如何与不方便法院原则的使用相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Casopis pro Pravni Vedu a Praxi
Casopis pro Pravni Vedu a Praxi Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信