Skip to content

Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine. / Arzandeh, A.

In: International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 2, 04.2016, p. 475-491.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Arzandeh, A 2016, 'Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine', International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 475-491. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589316000014

APA

Vancouver

Author

Arzandeh, A. / Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine. In: International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2016 ; Vol. 65, No. 2. pp. 475-491.

Bibtex

@article{96f7866ea564463793500472c1a727fc,
title = "Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine",
abstract = "A quarter of a century on from 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 the widely-accepted orthodoxy and demonstrates it to be unpersuasive. The article’s key contribution is to reconceptualise our understanding of the forum (non) conveniens doctrine in Australia. In this respect, 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 = "Private international law, jurisdiction, discretionary (non-)exercise of jurisdiction, Australian forum (non) conveniens doctrine, English forum (non) conveniens doctrine",
author = "A Arzandeh",
note = "Accepted for publication: 6 October 2015",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1017/S0020589316000014",
language = "English",
volume = "65",
pages = "475--491",
journal = "International and Comparative Law Quarterly",
issn = "0020-5893",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine

AU - Arzandeh, A

N1 - Accepted for publication: 6 October 2015

PY - 2016/4

Y1 - 2016/4

N2 - A quarter of a century on from 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 the widely-accepted orthodoxy and demonstrates it to be unpersuasive. The article’s key contribution is to reconceptualise our understanding of the forum (non) conveniens doctrine in Australia. In this respect, 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.

AB - A quarter of a century on from 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 the widely-accepted orthodoxy and demonstrates it to be unpersuasive. The article’s key contribution is to reconceptualise our understanding of the forum (non) conveniens doctrine in Australia. In this respect, 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.

KW - Private international law

KW - jurisdiction

KW - discretionary (non-)exercise of jurisdiction

KW - Australian forum (non) conveniens doctrine

KW - English forum (non) conveniens doctrine

U2 - 10.1017/S0020589316000014

DO - 10.1017/S0020589316000014

M3 - Article

VL - 65

SP - 475

EP - 491

JO - International and Comparative Law Quarterly

JF - International and Comparative Law Quarterly

SN - 0020-5893

IS - 2

ER -