Forum Non Conveniens

In Vedanta Resources plc v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20, the Supreme Court confirmed that the modern language of 'proper place' or 'appropriate forum' derives directly from Lord Goff of Chieveley's speech in Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, and that the change in terminology reflects only the Civil Procedure Rules' move away from Latin phrasing, not any change in the underlying concept. As summarised by Lord Collins in the Altimo case and adopted in Vedanta, 'the task of the court is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice'. That search generally requires a summary examination of the connecting factors between the case and the competing jurisdictions, including practical convenience such as accessibility for witnesses and a common language, the applicable system of law, and the place where the wrongful act or omission, and the harm, occurred.

Where a claimant seeks to bring a foreign defendant into English proceedings as a 'necessary or proper party' alongside an anchor defendant, the Supreme Court in Vedanta confirmed the claimant must additionally show that England is the proper place in which to bring the combined claims, or that there is a real risk the claimant would not obtain substantial justice in the otherwise more appropriate foreign jurisdiction. On the facts of Vedanta itself, connecting factors — including the location of the mine, the alleged environmental harm, and the applicable Zambian law — strongly favoured Zambia as the natural forum, notwithstanding that an English-domiciled parent company could be sued as of right in England.