Forum Shopping
Share
Forum shopping is the practice of strategically selecting a specific court or jurisdiction in which to file a lawsuit or legal action in order to gain a perceived advantage in the case. It involves seeking out a forum that is likely to be more favourable or beneficial for the party initiating the lawsuit. This practice is often employed when there are multiple jurisdictions available for filing a claim, and each jurisdiction may have different laws, procedures, or precedents that can impact the outcome of the case. The reasons for engaging in forum shopping can vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the objectives of the parties involved.
Favourable laws: Parties may choose a forum that has laws or legal precedents that are more sympathetic or advantageous to their position. For example, a plaintiff in a product liability case may seek a forum with a history of large damage awards or a higher likelihood of finding liability on the part of the defendant.
Procedural advantages: Different jurisdictions may have varying procedural rules that can impact the course of litigation. Parties may seek a forum with more relaxed or favourable rules on matters such as discovery, evidence admissibility, or the availability of certain legal remedies.
Expertise: Certain jurisdictions may have specialised courts or judges with specific expertise in a particular area of law. Parties may choose to file in those jurisdictions to benefit from the specialised knowledge and experience of the judges, which they believe will result in a more favourable outcome.
Jury composition: In cases where a jury is involved, parties may consider the composition and tendencies of the potential jury pool in different jurisdictions. They may seek a forum with a demographic makeup or community attitudes that align more closely with their interests or beliefs.
Reputation and track record: The reputation of a court or judge can influence the decision to forum shop. If a particular court is known for being plaintiff-friendly or defendant-friendly, parties may strategically select that forum based on their perception of how the court will handle the case.
Forum shopping is not universally allowed or accepted. Many legal systems have rules and doctrines in place to address forum shopping and prevent its abuse. For example, forum non conveniens is a doctrine that allows a court to decline jurisdiction if it determines that another forum is more appropriate and convenient for the case. This doctrine aims to ensure fairness and avoid undue manipulation of forum selection.
Efforts have also been made to address international forum shopping, where parties seek advantageous jurisdictions across national borders. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is an international treaty that seeks to establish rules and procedures for honouring exclusive choice of court agreements and limiting forum shopping in international disputes.
In summary, forum shopping involves strategically selecting a court or jurisdiction based on perceived advantages such as favourable laws, procedural rules, expertise, jury composition, or reputation. While it can be a contentious practice that undermines fairness and consistency in the legal system, efforts have been made to mitigate its impact through legal doctrines and international agreements.
Favourable laws: Parties may choose a forum that has laws or legal precedents that are more sympathetic or advantageous to their position. For example, a plaintiff in a product liability case may seek a forum with a history of large damage awards or a higher likelihood of finding liability on the part of the defendant.
Procedural advantages: Different jurisdictions may have varying procedural rules that can impact the course of litigation. Parties may seek a forum with more relaxed or favourable rules on matters such as discovery, evidence admissibility, or the availability of certain legal remedies.
Expertise: Certain jurisdictions may have specialised courts or judges with specific expertise in a particular area of law. Parties may choose to file in those jurisdictions to benefit from the specialised knowledge and experience of the judges, which they believe will result in a more favourable outcome.
Jury composition: In cases where a jury is involved, parties may consider the composition and tendencies of the potential jury pool in different jurisdictions. They may seek a forum with a demographic makeup or community attitudes that align more closely with their interests or beliefs.
Reputation and track record: The reputation of a court or judge can influence the decision to forum shop. If a particular court is known for being plaintiff-friendly or defendant-friendly, parties may strategically select that forum based on their perception of how the court will handle the case.
Forum shopping is not universally allowed or accepted. Many legal systems have rules and doctrines in place to address forum shopping and prevent its abuse. For example, forum non conveniens is a doctrine that allows a court to decline jurisdiction if it determines that another forum is more appropriate and convenient for the case. This doctrine aims to ensure fairness and avoid undue manipulation of forum selection.
Efforts have also been made to address international forum shopping, where parties seek advantageous jurisdictions across national borders. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is an international treaty that seeks to establish rules and procedures for honouring exclusive choice of court agreements and limiting forum shopping in international disputes.
In summary, forum shopping involves strategically selecting a court or jurisdiction based on perceived advantages such as favourable laws, procedural rules, expertise, jury composition, or reputation. While it can be a contentious practice that undermines fairness and consistency in the legal system, efforts have been made to mitigate its impact through legal doctrines and international agreements.
