Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Ph.D in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
Abstract
According to the doctrine of "Forum Non Conveniens", which originated in common law, a court that has jurisdiction over a case may suspend proceedings or dismiss the case, provided that the other court is more appropriate for adjudicating the dispute. This doctrine, which first emerged in Scotland and later spread to England, the United States, and other common law countries, has undergone various transformations since its inception in the early seventeenth century. This study, in addition to examining the reasons behind the emergence of this doctrine, clarifies the conditions for its application, namely the "Existence of an Alternative Competent Court" and "The Appropriateness of another Court". Although Under Iranian law, a court with jurisdiction over an international dispute cannot refuse to hear the case and apply the doctrine of inappropriate forum just because a foreign court might be more appropriate. But this article seeks to introduce the common law doctrine into Iranian legal doctrine to encourage legislator to develop comprehensive and effective legal frameworks for addressing international legal disputes. This study employs a descriptive-analytical research methodology, utilizing a comparative approach to examine the legal systems of the United Kingdom and the United States, explaining the reliance on legal doctrine and case law from both jurisdictions, the paper explores the conditions under which the doctrine of forum non conveniens is applied. So that in this way, the objective is not only to trace the historical evolution of the doctrine but also to highlight the variations in its application across these two systems. The research is based on the library research method. Scottish courts have taken a relatively flexible approach to applying the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and if they are convinced that there is another competent court which can deal with the case more appropriately from the perspective of the interests of the parties and the requirements of justice, they apply the mentioned doctrine. In England, courts initially invoked the doctrine only if two conditions were met: first, the defendant had to demonstrate that bringing the case in England was oppressive or vexatious; and second, that the same case had already been filed in a foreign court. Over time, the first condition alone came to be viewed as sufficient. However, today, English courts have moved closer to the Scottish approach: if the court concludes that it is not the appropriate forum and another court is more appropriate, it will apply the doctrine. In the United States, forum non conveniens was initially applied in domestic cases and later extended to international disputes. The criteria for applying the doctrine in both types of disputes are the same: (1) there must be an alternative competent forum, and (2) that forum must be more appropriate for resolving the dispute. In determining the appropriateness of another court, American courts must consider both private and public interest factors, which include, among others, “access to sources of proof”, “congestion in the courts”, and “local interest in the litigation”. Although the Forum Non Conveniens doctrine can help a case be heard in a more appropriate court and make it easier to recognize and enforce the judgment, it also has some disadvantages. The most significant challenge is the lack of predictability regarding the competent forum and the eventual outcome for the parties involved. Another concern is the risk of parallel proceedings, which the doctrine cannot effectively prevent. A third issue is the potential for the parties to face a denial of justice. Of course, this problem will arise if the court rejects the dispute, but such a problem will not occur if the dispute is suspended until a more appropriate court makes a decision. Although in Iranian law, some legal scholars argue that, due to provisions like Article 971 of the Civil Code, the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens cannot be applied in the Iranian legal system; there are signs of its acceptance in Iranian law. A different interpretation of Article 971 could allow for the application of the doctrine and give Iranian judges the discretion to assess whether another court is more appropriate. Moreover, certain rules in Iranian Civil Procedure Code show, albeit to a limited extent, judges do have some discretion in identifying a more appropriate forum in domestic cases. The doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens provides a general basis for a court to decline jurisdiction. Under this doctrine, if the court determines that it is an inappropriate forum and a court in another country would be more appropriate, it may refuse to hear the case in favour of the more appropriate forum. This requires two key conditions: first, the seized court inappropriate forum, and second, another country's more appropriate forum. In principle, without these two conditions being satisfied, the court cannot decline jurisdiction under this doctrine. The determination of whether the current court is inappropriate and another country’s court is more appropriate lies with the court hearing the case. In making this decision, the court considers several factors, including the degree of connection between the dispute and the forum, ease of access to witnesses, availability of evidence, and the interests of the parties involved.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)