Forum non conveniens meaning

This Checklist This checklist reviews the procedural and related issues the tribunal is expected to address at a preliminary meeting in arbitration, whether the process is ad hoc or under an arbitral institution. Matters typically cover jurisdictional objections, applications for interim measures or the trial of preliminary points, setting schedules for the progress of elements of the reference, and organising how all the evidence will be exchanged and presented. Whatever the forum—ad hoc or institutional—and whichever institutional rules govern, the tribunal will usually convene a preliminary meeting soon after it is formed. The parties themselves (rather than their advisers) are generally not obliged to attend this session, although it is advantageous if they do, as they will meet the tribunal and confront the opposing team at an early juncture. In international cases, it may also be one of the few chances for everyone involved to be physically together before the main hearing, and it may provide a window for separate settlement discussions. Whether that is suitable can depend on...

This Checklist This Checklist sets out the principal matters to weigh when advising a potential claimant on pursuing a claim in an energy dispute. It spans a broad spectrum of disputes, the common thread being their basis in the energy sector, embracing claims linked to oil and gas exploration and production, the design, construction and operation of facilities that process and transport hydrocarbons, together with the generation of power and the sale of energy. By their nature, energy projects are typically intricate, multi-layered and frequently involve international elements. Accordingly, it is prudent from the outset to work with a clear checklist that captures every general and specific issue that must be addressed when managing such a dispute. For further guidance on responding to both energy disputes and attendant litigation, arbitration and ADR guidance, see the links to our related content on the right-hand side of this page. This Checklist should be read alongside Practice Note: Starting a claim in an energy dispute—a practical guide. Action Comments Consider any...

This Checklist This checklist reflects the requirements for claims progressing on the multi-track under CPR 29 and CPR PD 29, which govern multi-track case management. It should be read alongside Practice Notes: Multi-track—case management and Multi-track—case management conference (CMC), which provide general guidance on case management and on CMCs in the multi-track. This Checklist offers a high-level outline of key case management points to consider and deal with at an early stage of the proceedings and before any CMC takes place. It is not exhaustive and you will need to examine each point in greater depth where it is pertinent to the facts of the particular claim. The court’s case management of a claim will also vary according to the forum in which it is brought, and you must take into account the court-specific approach, including any guidance set out in that court’s guide. For further details, see: Court specific case management—overview and Practice Note: Court guides and other guidance...

Flowchart This Flowchart outlines the key questions for deciding international jurisdiction in employment matters—namely, the appropriate forum for bringing proceedings and identifying the court and/or tribunal competent to hear the claim—applicable to proceedings commenced on or after 1 January 2021. For additional guidance on jurisdiction in employment disputes from 1 January 2021 onwards, consult Practice Note: International jurisdiction—the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in employment cases as set out therein...

This Flowchart This flowchart outlines a process covering key actions and considerations for carrying out an appropriate level of client due diligence (CDD). Use it as a reference each time you take on a new client or begin a new matter...

Oswin v Otila; and Ondray Claim No ARB 032/2025 What was the background? This matter arose from a falling-out between Oswin (the Claimant) and Ondray (the Second Defendant) over how to run their joint venture company, Otila (the First Defendant). Oswin owned 49% of the First Defendant’s shares and Ondray 51%. The board could act only by unanimous vote, while shareholder resolutions required a 75% super-majority. When they were unable to agree on management and operations, the company became deadlocked. Their relationship was governed by a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 12 March 2019, which included an arbitration clause calling for DIFC-seated proceedings under the DIFC-LCIA Rules. The Claimant also operated a medical and hazardous waste facility under an Operations and Management Agreement due to expire on 21 August 2025. On 15 August 2025, the Claimant issued a Dispute Notice under clause 21.2 of the JVA, alleging that the Second Defendant was assuming strategic decision-making without proper authority—covering directions on renewal of the O&M Agreement, instruction of external...

In this issue: Lending Security Debt capital markets Derivatives Cryptoassets Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Lending Nova Leipzig Sarl v Gravity Fitness Ltd [2025] EWHC 1262 (Comm) An application to the Commercial Court sought a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court held that Gravity Fitness Limited, an English company, had not satisfied its burden on the ‘More Appropriate Forum’ question. The defendant’s reliance on the potential application of German law was insufficient to establish that Germany was a more suitable forum than England, whether viewed from the parties’ interests or the broader interests of justice. Security Brooke Homes (Bicester) Ltd v Portfolio Property Partners Ltd (in administration) [2025] EWHC 1305 (Ch) This dispute examines equitable rights and duties between secured creditors after development land was sold by the first-ranking mortgagee, Desiman. The second-ranking creditor, Brooke Homes, sought an equitable account and pressed...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Recruitment Public sector Pay Tax Protected characteristics Equality of terms (equal pay) Whistleblowing Employee duties and restrictions on competition Unfair dismissal Employment Tribunals Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Horizon scanning Government U-turns on day-one unfair dismissal rights and announces compensation cap ‘will be lifted’ On 27 November 2025, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) confirmed that, following a round of ‘constructive conversations’ with trade unions and business representatives, the discussions settled on a ‘workable package’: shortening the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months, while preserving existing day-one protection against discrimination and for automatically unfair reasons for dismissal. To reinforce these safeguards, the government further pledged that any alteration to the unfair dismissal qualifying period will only be possible through primary legislation,...

For many years, virtually every disagreement about agricultural tenancies was sent to arbitration at the outset. The rationale was that questions concerning agricultural holdings often have a strong practical dimension, so arbitration was thought a more suitable forum than the courts. This reflected the earlier assumption that practical considerations predominated in such cases, making a court reference less apt back then. Over time, however, matters of considerable legal intricacy also came before arbitrators. With the enactment of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 (AH(S)A 2003), policy shifted, and the main route for resolving disputes about agricultural tenant issues is now referral to the Scottish Land Court. At the same time, arbitration procedures were streamlined, and alternative processes, eg mediation, were enabled. Although the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 (AH(S)A 1991) still sets out distinct mechanisms for dispute resolution, AH(S)A 2003 has substantially reshaped them, so that the arrangements for resolving disputes under 1991 Act Tenancies are, in large part, aligned with those for 2003 Act Tenancies...

Context Jurisdiction clauses frequently appear in commercial contracts and are typically framed as either: Exclusive jurisdiction clauses (see Practice Note:Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements) Non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses (see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements) Where parties have chosen an exclusive jurisdiction term, the default position is that the English court will ordinarily ‘exercise its discretion… to secure compliance with the contractual bargain’. Such provisions now appear ever more often in trust instruments. Nevertheless, several questions arise concerning: the drafting of such clauses the areas to be covered by such clauses the interpretation and effects of such clauses Two examples of jurisdiction clauses As presently encountered, trust jurisdiction provisions create a series of connected issues, including how they are drafted, what they should cover, and how they are interpreted and what they achieve. Before considering their operation, it is useful to look at a couple of typical illustrations: a Jersey law...

This Practice Note examines the statutory bars to extradition from the UK contained in section 11 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003). There are numerous specific grounds that an individual may rely upon to resist extradition under EA 2003. Some of these grounds apply across both categories of request, while others are confined to EA 2003, Pt 1 or EA 2003, Pt 2 requests only. For an overview of the statutory scheme under EA 2003, see Practice Note: Extradition and the statutory framework—an introduction to extradition. For further guidance on the procedure applicable to EA 2003, Pt 1 and EA 2003, Pt 2, see Practice Note: Extradition under Parts 1 and 2 of the Extradition Act 2003—procedure. Statutory bars At the extradition hearing, the district judge will assess whether the request relates to an extradition offence and whether any of the statutory bars to extradition apply. The statutory grounds for opposing extradition are then considered in turn...

The Investment Property Forum (IPF) produced this precedent because they recognise it is very common for the parties to a prospective property deal to enter into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) so they can review certain marketing material and/or commence due diligence...

Filed on behalf of the defendant Witness Statement of [ enter the initial and surname of the witness ]. Witness statement number: [ enter the number of the witness statement relating to this witness ]. Exhibit particulars: [ enter initials and the number for each exhibit referred to ]. The statement date: [ enter date ]. [ Date of translation: [ enter date ] ]. Claim number: [ enter claim number ]. ...

We have conducted a review to identify where our business faces the greatest risk of either: creating or adding to negative human rights impacts through our own operations, or having our activities, goods or services directly tied to adverse human rights impacts via our business partners. [ We were supported by [ name of external consultants ] in completing this review. ] [ During the review we engaged the following stakeholders through [ insert brief details of method(s) of stakeholder engagement used, if any ]: [ insert details of first internal and external stakeholders engaged with during the assessment ] [ insert details of next internal and external stakeholders engaged with during the assessment ] ] [ We followed the impact assessment approach set out in [ eg The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), working with...