Dispute Resolution analysis: A stay of a worldwide copyright infringement claim was not appropriate on forum non conveniens or alternatively on case management grounds where it could not be said that the most appropriate forum for the proceedings was in Qatar. Mr Justice Birss sitting in the High Court so held in declining an application by the defendant, Qatar Airways (QA), against the claimant, Performing Right Society Ltd (PRS), the claimant. Written by Sandip Patel QC, managing partner, at Aliant (London).

This Practice Note considers an appeal against a decision as to the appropriate forum to hear the dispute. Considerations before making an appeal When dealing with a dispute as to forum, the fundamental question for a court to determine is ‘which is the natural and appropriate forum to hear the dispute?’. In determining this, the judge will evaluate all the evidence put before the court. For practitioners considering whether to appeal a decision on forum, this is important as appeal courts will rarely allow an appeal in which it is being asked to re-evaluate the evidence that was before the court at first instance. This can clearly be seen in the House of Lords decision in Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex (1986) where it was said that 'the relative merits of trial in England and trial abroad is pre-eminently a matter for the trial judge' because ‘Commercial Court judges are very experienced in these matters’ and 'An appeal should be rare and the appellate court should be slow to interfere'. This approach was reiterated

This Practice Note considers forum non conveniens arguments when making an application to challenge the court’s jurisdiction. Such a challenge may arise where the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction as of right, eg there has been valid service of the claim form in the jurisdiction but the defendant(s) position is that the court should decline to accept jurisdiction on the basis that another court is the more appropriate forum to determine the dispute. This is determined by the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. For guidance on: • the application of the doctrine in service applications, see Practice Note: Forum non conveniens—service out of the jurisdiction. This applies in cases in which the defendant disputes that there has been valid service of the claim form • the principles of the doctrine, see Practice Note: Forum non conveniens—principles • challenging court jurisdiction generally, see: Challenging court jurisdiction—overview Applicable principles Where the doctrine of forum non conveniens is applicable, the courts will apply the basic principle set out by the House of Lords

This Practice Note discusses a key consideration of relevance when dealing with forum non conveniens, namely the factors connecting the proceedings to a jurisdiction (the connecting factors). For guidance on: • the approach in cases in which the parties have agreed a jurisdiction clause, see Practice Note: Forum non conveniens—jurisdiction clauses and the strong reasons test • the principle of forum non conveniens, as well as situations when it may be relevant and its application, see Practice Notes: Forum non conveniens—principles, Forum non conveniens—challenging jurisdiction and Forum non conveniens—service out of the jurisdiction • the requirement for justice consideration when applying the principle of forum non conveniens, see Practice Note: Forum non conveniens—requirement for justice Determining the ‘most real and substantial connection’ When dealing with an application involving cross-border issues, the court will need to consider whether it is the proper and appropriate forum to hear the dispute or whether it should be heard by the courts in another jurisdiction. Due to the international nature of the claims, a number of factors may be relevant.

This Practice Note considers the approach of the English courts when considering whether to stay English court proceedings where the parties have agreed an exclusive, non exclusive or asymmetric jurisdiction clause. The court will apply the strong reasons test when determining whether to order a stay. The jurisdiction clause may provide for English court jurisdiction or foreign court jurisdiction. In cases in which the parties have agreed an English jurisdiction clause and proceedings have been brought in a foreign court, the courts may be asked to restrain the foreign claimant from pursuing those foreign proceedings, for example by the grant of an anti-suit injunction. For guidance, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions—principles. When considering questions of forum non conveniens, the English courts apply the test set out in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd (1987), ie the question is whether there is a clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum in which the disputes between the parties should be resolved. The House of Lords in Spiliada was not addressing a situation in which

This Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales (English courts) have jurisdiction to hear a dispute and may be applied during a number of different types of applications. For guidance on other aspects of forum non conveniens, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners. Note: this Practice Note refers to the following judgments: • Privy Council decision in AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel (2011). In some law reports, this judgment is referred to as Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel • Supreme Court decision in Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd (2020) is referenced as Unwired Planet. The Court of Appeal decision in that case was Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL (2019) and is referenced as Huawei

This Practice Note discusses a key consideration which applies in the context of forum non conveniens, namely the requirements of justice. It should be noted that there are few decisions in which this requirement has been held to rebut the presumption of a stay. For guidance on: • the principle of forum non conveniens, see Practice Note: Forum non conveniens—principles • situations in which it may be relevant and its application, see Practice Notes: Forum non conveniens—challenging jurisdiction and Forum non conveniens—service out of the jurisdiction • the connecting factors applicable when applying the principle of forum non conveniens, see Practice Note: Forum non conveniens—connecting factors Note: this Practice Note refers to the judgment of the Privy Council in AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel. In some law reports this judgment is referred to as Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel. Standalone assessment The question as to whether there is a ‘real risk’ that substantial justice will not be obtained in the foreign jurisdiction is generally treated

This Practice Note considers the position when dealing with forum non conveniens arguments in an application to set aside an order for service out of the jurisdiction on the basis that there has not been valid service of the claim form. An application for permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction requires, among other things, the court to consider whether England and Wales is the appropriate jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Permission will only be granted to serve the claim form in another jurisdiction if the courts of England and Wales (English courts) have jurisdiction. A defendant may seek to have an order granting permission to serve out set aside if they consider that the English courts do not have jurisdiction or that the proper forum are the courts of another jurisdiction. For guidance on: • setting aside an order granting permission, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—setting aside an order granting permission to serve out of the jurisdiction • forum non conveniens in jurisdiction challenge applications, see Practice Note: Forum non

Information Law analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a judge was entitled to transfer a data protection and human rights claim from the High Court to the County Court pursuant to CPR 53.4(2). The claim was neither complex nor high value and raised no issue warranting trial by a High Court judge. This decision provides critical guidance on forum selection for data protection claims. The Court of Appeal confirmed that data protection claims can and do proceed in the County Court, which is the correct forum for claims that are not high value, factually or legally complex, or of significant public importance. Written by Caitlin Moreland, associate at Mishcon de Reya LLP.

The practice of choosing a specific jurisdiction favourable to an anticipated restructuring/insolvency, usually by moving COMI (centre of main interests).

Rationale In any cross-border case involving a formal insolvency procedure, the restructuring advisors will assess which jurisdictions are available for the proceedings, looking at the advantages and disadvantages of each (see Practice Note: Table of advantages and disadvantages of restructuring in various jurisdictions worldwide). The use of the concept of centre of main interests (COMI) in the Regulation (EU) 2015/848, Recast Regulation on Insolvency [EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency] and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (see: UNCITRAL Model Law and Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR)—overview) means that if time permits, practitioners may consider forum shopping (or ‘insolvency tourism’ or ‘jurisdictional arbitrage’) to move the COMI of a company (regardless of where it is incorporated in the world/where its registered office is located) to a jurisdiction with a more favourable restructuring or insolvency regime. It is ironic that forum shopping has increased since their enactment, despite the express reference in the predecessor to the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency, Recital 4 of Regulation (EC) 1346/2000, that: ‘It is necessary

Law360, London: A senior official at the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) warned business leaders on 1 September 2025 against reporting white-collar wrongdoing to prosecutors around the world for strategic reasons, saying that it is the 'antithesis' to cooperation with the agency.