Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:44:46.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RECONSIDERING THE AUSTRALIAN FORUM (NON) CONVENIENS DOCTRINE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2016

Ardavan Arzandeh
Ardavan Arzandeh*
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Law, University of Bristol, ardavan.arzandeh@bris.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A quarter of a century after the High Court of Australia's landmark ruling in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd, this article examines the application of the modern-day forum (non) conveniens doctrine in Australia. It outlines the prevailing view in the academic literature which claims that the Australian doctrine is functionally different from its English counterpart, articulated in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd. Through a detailed assessment of the case law and commentary, this article questions that widely accepted orthodoxy and demonstrates it to be unpersuasive and reconceptualizes our understanding of the forum (non) conveniens doctrine in Australia. Its main contention is that while, theoretically, there may be a narrow conceptual space between Spiliada and Voth, it is so narrow as to be practically non-existent.

Keywords

Australian forum (non) conveniens doctrinediscretionary (non-)exercise of jurisdictionEnglish forum (non) conveniens doctrinejurisdictionprivate international law
Type
Shorter Articles and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 475 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1990) 171 CLR 538.

2 See Collins, L, ‘The High Court of Australia and forum conveniens: a further comment’ (1989) 105 LQR 364Google Scholar, 366 and Pryles, M, ‘Forum Non Conveniens – the Next Chapter’ (1991) 65 ALJ 442Google Scholar, 443.

3 (1988) 165 CLR 197.

4 ibid 247–8.

5 [1987] AC 460. Indeed, a few other common law jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore, have followed the developments in English law.

6 Pryles (n 2) 442, 449.

7 RA Brand and SR Jablonski, Forum Non Conveniens: History, Global Practice, and Future Under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (OUP 2007) 90.

8 Prince, P, ‘Bhopal, Bougainville and Ok Tedi: Why Australia's Forum Non Conveniens Approach is Better’ (1998) 47 ICLQ 573Google Scholar, 576 and 597.

9 eg Marasinghe, L, ‘International Litigation: Choice of Forum’ (1993) 23 UWALRev 264Google Scholar, 271–3; Hayes, EL, ‘Forum Non Conveniens in England, Australia and Japan: The Allocation of Jurisdiction in Transnational Litigation’ (1992) 26 UBCLawRev 41Google Scholar, 52–4; Garnett, R, ‘Stay of Proceedings in Australia: A “Clearly Inappropriate” Test?’ (1999) 23 MULR 30Google Scholar, 36 and 63–4; Lindell, G, ‘Choice of Law in Torts and Another Farewell to Phillips v Eyre but the Voth Test Retained for Forum Non Conveniens in Australia’ (2002) 3 Melbourne Journal  of International Law 364Google Scholar, 376–8; Keyes, M, ‘Jurisdiction in International Family Litigation: A Critical Analysis’ (2004) 27 UNSWLJ 42Google Scholar, 51 (fn 48); Lord Collins et al. (eds), Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) [12–011]; R Mortensen et al., Private International Law in Australia (2nd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths 2011) ch 4; M Davies et al., Nygh's Conflict of Laws in Australia (9th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths Australia 2014) ch 8; and, A Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts (OUP 2014) [4.414]–[4.415]; and, A Briggs, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (6th edn, Informa Law from Routledge 2015) [4.39].

10 The Australian court relied on the English cases, even though it was not generally bound to do so. Traditionally, courts in Australia were only bound to follow the decisions of the Privy Council, which used to act as their final appellate court. This aspect of the Privy Council's role was gradually confined—following the enactment of the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975—and, subsequently, completely abolished—after the Australian Act 1986 came into force.

11 (1908) 6 CLR 194.

12 Particularly, Logan v Bank of Scotland (No 2) [1906] 1 KB 141 and Egbert v Short [1907] 2 Ch 205. Scott LJ consolidated the pronouncements in these (and various other) cases into a test in St Pierre v South American Stones (Gath & Chaves) Ltd [1936] 1 KB 382, which became English law's locus classicus in the context of staying of as-of-right proceedings.

13 Cope Allman (Australia) Ltd v Celermajer [1968] 11 FLR 488 and Telford Panel and Engineering Works v Elder Smith Goldsborough (1969) VR 193 (both interstate cases).

14 WA Dewhurst & Co Pty Ltd v Cawrse [1960] VR 278; Richardson v Tiver [1960] VR 578 and Earthworks & Quarries Ltd v FT Eastment & Sons Pty Ltd [1966] VR 24.

15 Lewis Construction Co Pty Ltd v Tichauer S/A [1966] VR 341 and Hayel Saeed Anam & Co v Eastern Sea Freighters Pty Ltd (1973) 7 SASR 200.

16 Société Générale De Paris v Dreyfus Brothers (1887) 37 Ch D 215; The Hagen [1908] P 189; Rosler v Hilbery [1925] Ch 250; In Re Schintz [1926] Ch 710; and, The Fehmarn [1957] 2 Lloyd's Rep 551.

17 [1974] AC 436.

18 eg Clutha Developments Pty Ltd v Marion Power Shovel Co Inc [1973] 2 NSWLR 173; Keenco v South Australian and Territory Air Service Ltd [1974] 23 FLR 155; and, Maple v David Syme & Co Ltd [1975] 1 NSWLR 97: discussed in Nygh, P, ‘Recent Developments in Private International Law’ (1974–1975) 6 Australian International Law Journal 172Google Scholar, 172.

19 [1978] AC 795.

20 [1980] 47 FLR 441.

21 ibid 447–8.

22 [1979] 1 NSWLR 663, 667.

23 ibid 668–70.

24 See also A v B [1979] 1 NSWLR 57 and Ranger Uranium Mines Pty v BTR Trading (Q) Pty Ltd [1985] 75 FLR 422.

25 Spiliada (n 5) 476. The same test applies in service-out cases, though claimant bears the burden of proof.

26 ibid 478.

27 There was certainly no indication to the contrary in the Australian literature at the time: P Nygh, Conflict of Laws in Australia (4th edn, Butterworths 1984) 63–4.

28 Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ; Wilson and Toohey JJ dissenting.

29 See, mainly, Pryles, M, ‘Judicial Darkness on the Oceanic Sun’ (1988) 62 ALJ 774Google Scholar; Reynolds, FMB, ‘Forum non conveniens in Australia’ (1989) 105 LQR 40Google Scholar; and, Briggs, A, ‘Wider still and wider: the bounds of Australian exorbitant jurisdiction’ [1989] LMCLQ 216Google Scholar.

30 Oceanic Sun (n 3) 238.

31 ibid 254. Gaudron J alluded to similar concerns: 265.

32 ibid 238.

33 ibid 253 (Deane J) and 265 (Gaudron J).

34 ibid 238–9.

35 ibid 241.

36 ibid 266.

37 ibid 248.

38 ibid 248 (Deane J) and 266 (Gaudron J).

39 Briggs, A, ‘Forum non conveniens in Australia’ (1989) 105 LQR 200Google Scholar, 200; Collins (n 2) 364, 364–5; and, Briggs (n 29) 216, 221–2.

40 Pryles (n 29) 774, 784–5.

41 eg Collins, L, ‘The High Court of Australia and forum conveniens: the last word?’ (1991) 107 LQR 182Google Scholar; Pryles (n 2); Brereton, P, ‘Forum Non Conveniens in Australia: A Case Note on Voth v Manildra Flour Mills’ (1991) 40 ICLQ 895Google Scholar; and, Garnett (n 9) 30, 33–6.

42 Voth (n 1) 552 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Gaudron JJ, who handed down a joint judgment) and 572 (Brennan J).

43 Toohey J maintained his stance in the Oceanic Sun and applied the Spiliada test.

44 Voth (n 1) 558–9.

45 ibid 560.

46 ibid 558–62.

47 ibid 559.

48 ibid 566.

49 ibid 559.

50 ibid 565. See also Mortensen (n 9) [2.42]. The defendant bears the burden in as-of-right proceedings.

51 Mortensen (n 9) [4.21].

52 ibid [4.22].

53 Keyes (n 9) 42, 63 (citations omitted). See also Pryles (n 2); Marasinghe (n 9); Prince (n 8); and, Lindell (n 9).

54 Dicey, Morris & Collins (n 9) [12–011].

55 Briggs (n 9) [4.39]. See also Private International Law in English Courts (n 9) [4.414]–[4.415].

56 Hayes (n 9) 41, 54.

57 Briggs (n 9) [4.39].

58 Brereton (n 41) 895, 900. See also Hayes (n 9) 41, 52.

59 Collins (n 41) 182, 187.

60 eg Lindell (n 9) 364, 378.

61 eg P Nygh, Conflict of Laws in Australia (6th edn, Butterworth 1995) 108 and Garnett (n 9).

62 (2002) 210 CLR 491.

63 (2008) 238 CLR 265.

64 Davies (n 9) [8.23]–[8.24].

65 Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ; Kirby and Callinan JJ dissenting.

66 Lindell (n 9) 364, 381.

67 Smart, PStJ, ‘Foreign torts and the High Court of Australia’ (2002) 118 LQR 512Google Scholar, 515.

68 See eg M Keyes, Jurisdiction in International Litigation (Federation Press 2005) ch 5 who examines, inter alia, the application of Voth in Australia through a quantification of all the instances in which the Australian superior courts (including the Family Court of Australia) applied the forum (non) conveniens doctrine between 1991 and 2001.

69 Davies (n 9) [8.26]–[8.56].

70 Voth case (n 1) 566. See also John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, 521; El-Kharouf v El-Kharouf [2004] NSWSC 187, [23]; and, Fleming v Marshall (2011) 279 ALR 737, [104]: cited in Davies (n 9) [8.38]–[8.43].

71 Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ in Zhang (n 62) 521.

72 Davies (n 9) [8.39].

73 [2000] FCA 656 (Guinean governing law).

74 (n 70) (Jordanian applicable law).

75 Bell, A, ‘Symposium Paper: The Future of Private International Law in Australia’ (2012) 19 AustILJ 11Google Scholar, 14 at <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIntLawJl/2012/2.pdf>.

76 Dicey, Morris & Collins (n 9) [12–034] (citations omitted). See also Briggs (n 9) [4.26].

77 Lord Mance JSC in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corpn [2013] UKSC 5; [2013] 2 AC 337, 368.

78 In Australia, see eg Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571 and CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 (where the Australian proceedings were stayed in favour of the ongoing proceedings in Monaco and New Jersey, respectively), further discussed in Davies (n 9) [8.45]–[8.46]. In England, see Lord Diplock's speech in The Abidin Daver [1984] AC 398, 409–10 and the commentary in Dicey, Morris & Collins (n 9) [12–043].

79 Henry (n 78) 580. In England, see Lord Goff in de Dampierre v de Dampierre [1988] AC 92, 108 and Hirst J in Cleveland Museum of Art v Capricorn Art International SA [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 166, 173.

80 (n 78) 409–10 (proceedings pending in Turkey).

81 [2010] 247 FLR 374 (litigation pending in Costa Rica). See also Henry (n 78) 592–3.

82 See Henry (n 78) 590.

83 See eg The Volvox Hollandia [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep 361.

84 More generally, see the similarity in the Australian and English courts’ approaches to the issue of location of witnesses and evidence, as highlighted in Davies (n 9) [8.54]–[8.56] and Briggs (n 9) [4.24]–[4.25].

85 [2010] FCA 897.

86 [2003] EWHC 2632 (Comm), affirmed by the Court of Appeal [2005] EWCA Civ 383; [2005] 1 CLC 515.

87 Spiliada (n 5) 476 and Connelly v RTZ Corporation (No 2) [1998] AC 854.

88 Fleming v Marshall (n 70).

89 Campbell JA in Garsec Pty Ltd v His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei [2008] NSWCA 211, [141], discussed in Davies (n 9) [8.33]–[8.35].

90 Keyes (n 68) 173.

91 eg Reinsurance Australia Corp Ltd v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd [2003] FCA 56, discussed in Davies (n 9) [8.35]–[8.36].

92 Voth (n 1) 558.

93 ibid 559.

94 ibid.

95 Garnett (n 9) 30, 34.

96 ibid 36.

97 Private International Law in English Courts (n 9) [4.415].

98 Spiliada (n 5).

99 eg VTB (n 77).

100 [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 269, 272. See also Cleveland Museum (n 79) and Chase v Ram Technical Services Ltd [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 418.

101 Zhang (n 62) 520–1.

102 [1998] 45 NSWLR 20, 33–4.

103 Keyes (n 68) 118.

104 Voth (n 1) 540–3.

105 [1999] VSC 11, [27]-[29].

106 [2007] NSWSC 882, [112]–[124] (upheld on appeal: [2008] NSWCA 211). See also McGregor v Potts [2005] 68 NSWLR 109, [52]-[83], a service-out case, in which the Australian court decided not to exercise jurisdiction following a detailed comparison of the (dis)advantages of trial in Australia and England; and, CMA CGM SA v Chou Shan, where, before ordering a stay, the Australian court had heard competing arguments about the (un)suitability of having the trial in Australia or China: [2014] FCA 74, [115]–[123] (upheld on appeal: [2014] FCAFC 90).

107 Keyes (n 68) 138.

108 ibid 140.

109 Case 281/02 [2005] ECR I–1383.

110 [1992] Ch 72.

111 [2008] SADC 54.

112 [2010] NSWSC 909. cf McGregor (n 106).

113 (n 87). See also Lubbe v Cape [2000] 1 WLR 1545.

114 Voth (n 1) 565. In his concurring speech in Spiliada, Lord Templeman had made a very similar prediction: (n 5) 465.

115 [2005] NSWSC 803, [72]. See also Giles J's comments in News Corporation Ltd v Lenfest Communications Inc (1996) 40 NSWLR 250, [72]: cited in Davies (n 9) 197 (fn 89).

116 [2012] FCA 123, [51] (citation omitted).

117 See also Whung v Whung (2011) 45 Fam LR 269, Telesto Investments Ltd v USB AG (2012) 262 FLR 119 and Chen v Tan [2012] FamCA 225: cited in Davies (n 9) [8.27] (fn 93).

118 eg Lord Collins of Mapesbury in Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7; [2012] 1 WLR 1804, 1808 and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC in VTB (n 77) 375–7. See also Hill, J, ‘Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters: Is There a Third Way?’ [2001] CLP 439Google Scholar, 449–50 and Arzandeh, A, ‘Should the Spiliada Test Be Revised?’ (2014) 10 JPrivIntL 89Google Scholar, 96–7.

119 Voth (n 1) 558.