Concurrent Jurisdiction
Share
Concurrent jurisdiction exists when multiple courts or legal authorities have the power to hear and decide a particular case. In other words, it is a situation where more than one court or tribunal has jurisdiction over a specific matter. The parties involved in a case with concurrent jurisdiction have the option to choose which court to bring their case before. Concurrent jurisdiction can arise for various reasons, such as:
Geographic factors: Different courts may have jurisdiction over the same case based on geographic boundaries. For example, in the United States, a civil case involving federal law may be heard in both a federal district court and a state court, depending on the specific circumstances and claims involved.
Subject matter factors: Certain cases may fall within the jurisdiction of multiple courts due to the nature of the claims or legal issues involved. For instance, disputes related to intellectual property rights may be subject to concurrent jurisdiction between specialised intellectual property courts and general civil courts.
Hierarchical factors: In some legal systems, different courts may have overlapping jurisdiction due to the hierarchical structure of the judiciary. For instance, an appellate court may have concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts to hear appeals from their decisions.
Concurrent jurisdiction allows parties involved in a dispute to choose the court that best suits their interests, based on factors such as the legal principles applied, the expertise of the judges, the convenience of the location, or the reputation of the court. However, it is important to note that the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction is subject to certain limitations and rules to ensure orderly and efficient administration of justice.
In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the first court in which the case is filed and properly initiated typically retains jurisdiction over the case unless there are specific legal provisions or circumstances that allow for the transfer of the case to another court. In situations where multiple courts are presented with the same case, one court may decline jurisdiction in favour of the other court, based on factors such as the convenience of the parties, the interests of justice, or the principle of forum non conveniens.
Geographic factors: Different courts may have jurisdiction over the same case based on geographic boundaries. For example, in the United States, a civil case involving federal law may be heard in both a federal district court and a state court, depending on the specific circumstances and claims involved.
Subject matter factors: Certain cases may fall within the jurisdiction of multiple courts due to the nature of the claims or legal issues involved. For instance, disputes related to intellectual property rights may be subject to concurrent jurisdiction between specialised intellectual property courts and general civil courts.
Hierarchical factors: In some legal systems, different courts may have overlapping jurisdiction due to the hierarchical structure of the judiciary. For instance, an appellate court may have concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts to hear appeals from their decisions.
Concurrent jurisdiction allows parties involved in a dispute to choose the court that best suits their interests, based on factors such as the legal principles applied, the expertise of the judges, the convenience of the location, or the reputation of the court. However, it is important to note that the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction is subject to certain limitations and rules to ensure orderly and efficient administration of justice.
In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the first court in which the case is filed and properly initiated typically retains jurisdiction over the case unless there are specific legal provisions or circumstances that allow for the transfer of the case to another court. In situations where multiple courts are presented with the same case, one court may decline jurisdiction in favour of the other court, based on factors such as the convenience of the parties, the interests of justice, or the principle of forum non conveniens.
