Legal Definitions - inconvenient forum

An "inconvenient forum" refers to a court that, while legally having the authority (jurisdiction) to hear a case, is not the most appropriate or practical location for the trial. This concept is central to the legal doctrine known as forum non conveniens (Latin for "an unsuitable court"), which allows a court to dismiss a case, or in some systems transfer it, if there is a more suitable alternative forum available.

When deciding if a forum is inconvenient, a court considers various factors, broadly categorized into:

• Private interest factors: These relate to the convenience of the parties involved, such as the ease of access to sources of proof (documents, physical evidence), the availability of witnesses and the cost of compelling their attendance, and other practical considerations that make the trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.
• Public interest factors: These relate to the administrative difficulties and burdens on the court system, such as court congestion, the local interest in having the controversy decided at home, and the desirability of having a court apply the law of the jurisdiction with which it is most familiar.

The goal is to ensure that cases are heard in the forum that is most convenient for all parties and witnesses, and where justice can be administered most efficiently.

Examples of an Inconvenient Forum:

• International Business Dispute: A software company based in Ireland enters into a contract with a client in Australia. The contract explicitly states that any disputes will be governed by Irish law and heard in the courts of Dublin, Ireland. If the Australian client later attempts to sue the Irish company in a court in California, USA, for a breach of contract, the California court might deem itself an inconvenient forum. Most of the evidence, witnesses, and legal expertise related to Irish law would be in Ireland, and the parties had already agreed to that jurisdiction. The California court would likely dismiss the case, directing the Australian client to pursue the claim in Ireland.

  This illustrates the term because the California court, despite potentially having some basis for jurisdiction (e.g., if the Irish company had some minimal contact there), would recognize that Ireland is a significantly more appropriate and convenient venue due to the contract's terms, the applicable law, and the location of key evidence and witnesses.

• Cross-Country Accident: Two individuals, both residents of Texas, are involved in a minor car accident while on vacation in Montana. One of the Texans decides to sue the other for damages in a court in New York, where neither party resides, the accident did not occur, and no witnesses or evidence are located. The New York court would almost certainly declare itself an inconvenient forum. All relevant evidence, including police reports, medical records, and potential witnesses, would be in Montana or Texas. Bringing the case in New York would impose significant burdens and costs on both parties and the court system.

  This demonstrates an inconvenient forum because the New York court has no real connection to the dispute, and hearing the case there would be highly impractical and burdensome for everyone involved, especially when Texas or Montana would be far more suitable locations.

• Product Liability Claim: A consumer in Florida purchases a specialized industrial machine manufactured by a company based in Michigan. The machine malfunctions, causing property damage in Florida. The consumer decides to sue the Michigan manufacturer in a court in Alaska. The Michigan manufacturer would likely argue that Alaska is an inconvenient forum. The design, manufacturing process, and key personnel involved in the machine's production are all in Michigan. While the damage occurred in Florida, most of the evidence regarding the product's defect would be in Michigan, and Florida would also be a more logical alternative forum for the plaintiff's damages claim.

  This exemplifies an inconvenient forum because, despite the manufacturer being a large company, Alaska has no connection to the product's manufacture or the consumer's injury. Michigan, where the product was made, or Florida, where the injury occurred, would be far more convenient and appropriate forums for resolving the dispute.