FORUM NON-CONVENIENS

Even if a court has jurisdiction over a conflicts case, it may refuse to exercise or assume that jurisdiction
by invoking the principle of FORUM NON-CONVENIENS in view of any of the following practical
reasons:
Evidence and witness may not be readily available in the forum;
Court dockets of the forum may already be clogged and permitting additional cases would hamper the
speedy administration of justice;
Belief that the matter can be better tried and decided in another jurisdiction, either because the main
aspects of the case transpired or the material witnesses have their residence there;
To curb the evils of forum shopping;
Forum has no particular interest in the case;
Other courts are open and the case may be better tried in said courts;
Inadequacy of the local judicial machinery;
Difficulty of ascertaining the foreign law applicable.

A court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction where there is no legitimate reason for the case to be
brought there, or where presentation in that court will create hardship on the defendants or on relevant
witnesses because of the courts distance from them. The court will not dismiss the case under the
doctrine unless the plaintiff has another forum open to him.

There are 3 factors we must take into consideration in determining the most convenient forum for a
conflicts problem:
The forum state is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
It is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts;
It has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.
The doctrine should generally apply only if the defendant is a corporation. If the defendant is an
individual, the proper forum may not be able to acquire jurisdiction over him (he may not be residing
there), thus leaving the plaintiff without any remedy.
The application of this principle depends largely upon the facts of each case and to the sound discretion of
the court.