Explore: Forum Non Conveniens

Forum non conveniens (FNC; Latin for 'an inconvenient forum') is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum

whether it is the most appropriate forum or venue. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Latin for "inappropriate forum", a judge has a discretion to

objection to the chosen forum - for example, parties may add a clause where each party waives their right to assert forum non conveniens. This precludes or

forum non conveniens and remanding the case to the district court to consider the implications of the "Zango litigation" on its forum non conveniens analysis

and, if it has, whether another forum is more suitable (the forum non conveniens issue relates to the problem of forum shopping) for the disposition of

the forum non conveniens inquiry. If conclusive or substantial weight were given to the possibility of a change in law, the forum non conveniens doctrine

issue. A Virginia court may dismiss a case altogether on a motion of forum non conveniens if it can be shown that a far better venue for the case lies in another

460 is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It has been described as the "seminal case" on jurisdictional issues

a decade. The case was dismissed on May 30, 2001, on grounds of forum non conveniens (meaning that the case was outside the jurisdiction of US courts

May 4, the CBC's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case per forum non conveniens, saying that it would be more appropriately heard before a Canadian