The Promotion of Access to Justice through the Constitutional Development of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/10289Keywords:
Private international law, forum non conveniens, jurisdiction, access to justice, constitutional developmentAbstract
South African jurisdictional principles governing cross-border litigation have seen minor development in recent years and as such, remained feudal and anachronistic. It is essential for South African courts to be equipped with the necessary jurisdictional powers to assume and exercise jurisdiction in disputes concerning its own citizens against foreign multinational corporations. This article aims to propose a way forward, centred around the constitutional reform of the South African doctrine of forum non conveniens, in a manner that advances sustainable and equitable legal development, while also simultaneously promoting the principle of transformative constitutionalism and the right of access to courts. To produce sustainable and viable solutions, a comparative analysis of both the principles of private international law and the proposed reform of the doctrine in comparable jurisdictions is undertaken. The effect of any associated international agreements and instruments applicable to these jurisdictions that may have an impact on or insight into the way forward is also examined. It is hoped that this article will result in a meaningful contribution to the discourse on the development of the jurisdictional principles of South African law, to achieve access to justice for all within Southern Africa and the African continent as a whole.
References
Brand, RA and Jablonski, SR, Forum Non Conveniens: History, Global Practice, and Future under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (Oxford University Press 2007).
Broodryk T, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Class Actions in South Africa’ (2020) 24 Law, Democracy and Development <https://doi.org/10.17159/2077-4907/2020/ldd.v24.3>
Budlender G, ‘Access to Courts’ (2004) South African Law Journal.
Collins, JA and Harris, J (eds), Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (Sweet & Maxwell 2018).
Corpus Juris Civilis.
Eiselen S, ‘Goodbye Arrest Ad Fundandam, Hello Forum Non Conveniens?’ (2008) 4 Journal of South African Law.
Fawcett JJ, ‘The Impact of Article 6(1) of the ECHR on Private International Law’ (2007) 56 International and Comparative Law Quarterly <https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei148>
Fellmeth AX and Horwitz M, Guide to Latin in International Law (Oxford University Press 2009) <https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001>
Fentiman R, Encyclopaedia of Private International Law (Edward Elgar 2017).
Fentiman R, International Commercial Litigation (Oxford University Press 2010).
Fentiman R, ‘Jurisdiction, Discretion and the Brussels Convention’ (1993) 59 Cornell International Law Journal.
Forsyth CF, Private International Law: The Modern Roman-Dutch Law Including the Jurisdiction of the High Courts (Juta 2012).
Ham J, ‘(Br)exit Strategy: The Future of the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in the United Kingdom after “Brexit”’ (2020) 52 Cornell International Law Journal.
Harris J, ‘Stay of proceedings and the Brussels Convention’ (2005) 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly <https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei043>
Hartley TC, ‘Arbitration and the Brussels I Regulation – Before and after Brexit’ (2021) 17 Journal of Private International Law <https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2021.1907942>
Hartley TC, International Commercial Litigation (Cambridge University Press 2015) <https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316155776>
Keyes M, Jurisdiction in International Litigation (Federation Press 2005).
Langa P, ‘Transformative Constitutionalism’ (2006) 17 Stellenbosch Law Review.
Law of South Africa (LAWSA) Civil Procedure: Superior Courts Volume 4 (3rd replacement).
Mainsbridge A, ‘Discretion to Stay Proceedings: The Impact of “The Abidin Daver” on Judicial Chauvinism’ (1986) 11 Sydney Law Review.
Morgan GD, ‘Discretion to Stay Jurisdiction’ (1982) 31 International and Comparative Law Quarterly <https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/31.3.582>
North PM, Cheshire and North’s Private International Law (Butterworths 2017).
Nuyts A, L’exception de forum non conveniens (Bruylant 2003).
Nygh PE, Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia (Butterworths 2019).
Pistorius D, Pollak on Jurisdiction (Juta 1993).
Robertson DW, ‘Forum Non Conveniens in America and England: A Rather Fantastic Fiction’ (1987) 103 Law Quarterly Review.
Schoeman E, ‘The Spiliada in South Africa: Sailing into the Future’ (2019 forthcoming).
Schultz T and Mitchenson J, ‘Rediscovering the Principle of Comity in English Private International Law’ (2018) 26 European Review of Private Law <https://doi.org/10.54648/ERPL2018025>
Schulze C, ‘Forum Non Conveniens in Comparative Private International Law’ (2001) 118 South African Law Journal.
Spiro E, ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ (1980) 13 Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa.
Taitz J, ‘Jurisdiction and Forum Non Conveniens – A New Approach?’ (1980) 43 Journal of Contemporary Roman Dutch Law.
Taitz J, ‘Jurisdiction and Forum Non Conveniens: A Reply’ (1981) 44 Journal of Contemporary Roman Dutch Law.
Tladi D, ‘Interpretation and International Law in South African Courts: The Supreme Court of Appeal and the Al Bashir Saga’ (2016) 16 African Human Rights Law Journal <https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2016/v16n2a1>
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA Trans 253 (28 May 2002) <https://doi.org/10.1108/14769018200200054>
Van der Sandt v Van der Sandt 1947 (1) SA 259 (T) <https://doi.org/10.4102/sajcd.v1i1.536>
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
© Published by the Department of Public, Constitutional and International Law, University of South Africa and Unisa Press.