Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
WIDER STILL AND WIDER: THE BOUNDS OF AUSTRALIAN EXORBITANT JURISDICTION
Adrian Briggs*
The doctrine of forum non conveniens is settled law in England.1 It applies to applications for a stay of proceedings commenced as of right by service of a writ within the jurisdiction or by the arrest of a ship in respect of an admiralty claim. Here the defendant needs to show there to be another forum clearly and distinctly more appropriate than England for the trial of the action but, if he can do so, proceedings are likely to be stayed.2 The doctrine applies also to applications for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction under R.S.C., Ord. 11. Here, however, the burden of proof has been reversed: as the plaintiff is seeking to persuade the court to assert jurisdiction over a defendant who is beyond its reach, and who might fairly consider himself to be unobliged to obey the summons, the plaintiff is required to justify such action by demonstrating, among other things, that England is a clearly and distinctly more3 appropriate forum (than that of the defendant’s residence) for the trial of the action. The judiciary in England seems entirely content to accept that this law, contained in the opinion of Lord Goff of Chieveley in Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd
4 represents the definitive statement of English law’s approach to the issue of whether a defendant should be required, against his wishes, to have the case against him tried in England rather than in some other forum. It is true that the occasional reactionary voice5 can still be heard, as often as not lamenting that those who act for plaintiffs ought to be pretty certain that, once they have captured their defendant, who may have incautiously wandered into the jurisdiction, they will be able to proceed to trial on the merits of the case. It cannot be denied that this is a legitimate point of view, even if it does seem to deny that the defendant could legitimately have an interest in where the trial be held; but in England, at least, it appears to represent a lost cause. However, an ally for this cause has suddenly emerged. The High Court of Australia has, for the time being at least,
* Fellow of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford.
1. There is a huge amount of literature, but no need to refer to it here.
2. Unless to do so would deprive the plaintiff of such an advantage that it would amount to an injustice to him to do so.
3. Lord Goff of Chieveley in Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd. [1987] A.C. 460 actually says that England must be the most appropriate forum, but it is submitted that this is what he means. Incidentally, this shows how the rules for staying proceedings in support of a foreign choice of forum clause could (despite the reluctance of the courts to do so) be brought within the Spiliada rules: the plaintiff who seeks to sue here in the face of such a clause asks the court to assert jurisdiction which is in another way exorbitant, and he should be required first to show England to be the more appropriate forum. In addition it will look like an injustice to allow him to break his contract, but in a strong case …
4. Supra, fn. 3.
5. For an erudite and eloquent example, see A. G. Slater, “Forum non conveniens: a view from the shop floor” (1988) 104 L.Q.R. 554.
216