This article examines the doctrine of forum non conveniens as applied in Hong Kong, Australia, the US and Sweden, and considers the criticism that has been raised against the doctrine. The author argues that some of this criticism is valid, some of it is valid only in relation to some countries’ application of the doctrine, and some of the criticism is unfounded. The author concludes that the test applied in Hong Kong and most other common law jurisdictions - the clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum test - is the better option. The author goes on to make a number of other recommendations regarding the application of the doctrine, including the suggestion that the doctrine would benefit from being implemented in legislation.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/dan_svantesson/7/