Forum Non Conveniens: Jurisdictional Challenges Before The Irish Courts

Key Takeaways

• Forum non conveniens (FNC) is an important doctrine in cross-border litigation, that permits a court, in certain circumstances, to stay proceedings where another jurisdiction is clearly the more appropriate forum to hear the dispute.

• The scope for relying on FNC is determined by the jurisdictional regime governing the underlying proceedings.

• The principles established in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Limited [1987] AC 460, require a defendant to prove that an alternative forum is clearly and distinctly more suitable.

• Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v Quinn [2016] 3 I.R. 197 remains a leading Irish authority on FNC, with courts assessing practical factors such as convenience, witnesses, cost, applicable law and the location of the parties. in order to decide whether the defendant has established that there is an alternative more appropriate forum than Ireland for the conduct of the proceedings. If this threshold is met by the defendant, the court will then determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that, nonetheless, justice requires that the proceedings remain in Ireland.

• Recent decisions including Ganley & anor v CNN Inc & ors [2026] IECA 33, Trafalgar Developments Limited & ors v Mazepin & ors [2025] IECA 280, and Delany v SAS Sociéte D’Exploitation et de Détention Hoteliére Vista & ors [2026] IEHC 243 highlight the fact-specific nature of jurisdictional challenges and that the court must weigh the competing factors to determine which venue is the more appropriate forum.

Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a legal doctrine that may, in certain cases, allow a court to stay proceedings properly before it on the basis that there is a more convenient and appropriate forum to hear the action. FNC has particular significance in the context of increasing cross-border litigation.

FNC operates within a wider jurisdictional framework, but its applicability depends on the particular foreign jurisdiction and jurisdictional regime involved.

The doctrine has recently been considered by the Irish courts in a number of high-profile cases.

Legal Principles

Generally, a plaintiff will seek to commence proceedings in its preferred forum. However, this choice may be limited by mandatory jurisdictional rules (such as those contained in Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Recast)) or by a contractual jurisdiction clause. Further, once proceedings have commenced, the doctrine of FNC may, depending on the jurisdictions involved, permit a defendant to contend that the dispute should be determined in an alternative, more appropriate forum.

A leading English decision on FNC, Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Limited [1987] AC 460 (approved in Ireland, e.g. in Intermetal Group Ltd v Worslade Trading Ltd [1998] 2 IR 1), provides that a stay will only be granted on FNC grounds where the court is satisfied that there is another available forum, having competent jurisdiction, in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties. The alternative forum must be clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the forum chosen by the plaintiff.

The legal burden of proof rests on a defendant to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to grant a stay on FNC grounds. For proceedings initiated in Ireland, a defendant must establish not only that Ireland is not the natural or appropriate forum but also identify another forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate. As detailed by the Court of Appeal in Ganley & anor v Cable News Network Inc. & ors [2026] IECA 33 (Ganley), the court must weigh the competing factors to determine which venue is the more appropriate forum.

In Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v Quinn [2016] 3 I.R. 197 (IBRC), the Supreme Court set out the principles governing FNC applications before the Irish courts:

• Firstly, the court must consider practical factors (for example, convenience, expense, applicable law and the place of business of the parties) in order to decide whether the defendant has established that there is an alternative ‘natural forum’ which is clearly more appropriate than Ireland for the conduct of the proceedings.

• If so established, it will then determine whether the plaintiff has put forward a sufficient basis for arguing that nonetheless justice requires that the proceedings should proceed in Ireland.

The fact that a plaintiff may be deprived of a legitimate personal or juridical advantage in the foreign forum is not a factor to be weighed when determining which forum is more appropriate, provided that substantial justice would be done in the alternative forum. It is practical issues that fall to be weighed.

FNC and Defendants Outside Ireland

Where proceedings are brought in Ireland against a defendant outside the jurisdiction, the plaintiff must effect service in accordance with the applicable rules, which will depend on the jurisdiction in which the defendant is located.

For example, where proceedings issued in Ireland are to be served on a defendant in another EU Member State, jurisdiction of the Irish courts is ordinarily determined by Brussels Recast and service must be effected in accordance with Order 11A of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) and the relevant EU service regime. Where Brussels Recast applies, the Irish courts generally have no discretion to decline jurisdiction on FNC grounds as it provides a mandatory framework for jurisdiction.

For proceedings issued in Ireland against parties domiciled in countries which are not a party to relevant international jurisdiction and service conventions, a plaintiff must bring an application seeking leave from the High Court to serve on the defendant(s) pursuant to Order 11 RSC (Order 11). As noted by the Court of Appeal in Trafalgar Developments Limited & ors v Mazepin & ors [2025] IECA 280 (Trafalgar), such an application requires the court to consider whether Ireland is the appropriate forum (forum conveniens) for the underlying action before leave to serve will be granted, with forum conveniens and FNC being “two sides of the same coin”. The former addresses the suitability, and the latter the lack of suitability, of Ireland as the appropriate jurisdiction to hear a particular action.

As noted in Trafalgar, for the most part, the court’s consideration of a defendant’s FNC based application will only arise in these circumstances if the court has assumed jurisdiction and is satisfied that there was a basis for service outside of Ireland pursuant to Order 11 RSC. If not, service will be refused in any event and the defendant will not be required to appear in Ireland to defend the proceedings.

However, in practice, where a plaintiff has been granted leave to serve proceedings on a defendant outside the jurisdiction, that defendant may, where FNC applies, issue two applications simultaneously: an application to set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction and an application to stay the proceedings on FNC grounds.As noted by the High Court in the recent Delany -v- SAS Sociéte D'Exploitation Et De Détention Hóteliére Vista and Ors[2026] IEHC 243 (Delany) decision, for the court this will require a consideration of many of the same factors in both applications. However, the burden of establishing that a court should stay proceedings on the grounds of FNC falls on the defendant, who must identify the jurisdiction that it claims to be more suitable and establish that it is in fact the more appropriate forum. Under Order 11 RSC, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish that Ireland is the forum conveniens for the trial of an action, so that service should be allowed to proceed.

FNC in Operation

In Ganley, a defamation case, the defendants accepted that the alleged tort occurred within this jurisdiction but argued that on FNC grounds, the courts of the United States (District of Columbia) were a more appropriate forum than Ireland to determine the dispute.

As per the IBRC test, it was necessary for the court to firstly determine whether the United States was a more appropriate forum than Ireland to hear the dispute and if so satisfied, the court was then required to consider whether the plaintiff had put forward a sufficient argument that justice nonetheless required that the proceedings be tried in Ireland.

The Court of Appeal concluded that there were several competing factors, some of which pointed towards Ireland as the appropriate forum and some of which pointed towards the United States. It was, therefore, necessary for the court to objectively weigh in the balance the competing factors, taking the position of both sides into account. The court considered the following relevant factors:

• The place of commission of a tort is, at the very least, a starting point suggesting that the courts of that place provide the most appropriate forum. It was common case here that the tort alleged in these proceedings (if committed) had taken place in Ireland as the claim is confined to the publications occurring in Ireland.

• The governing law is also a relevant (although not decisive) consideration. Accordingly, the fact that Irish law applies to the publications in issue was also a factor pointing towards this jurisdiction.

• The location and place of business of the parties is another relevant factor. Here, the plaintiffs are based in Ireland and the defendants abroad but in different jurisdictions, and so there was a slight tilt in favour of Ireland. However, the court indicated it would not give much weight to this imbalance.

• All the first defendant witnesses are based in the United States, which was a factor that pointed to the United States as the appropriate forum. The court observed, however, that while this may cause inconvenience to the first defendant, it would not prevent it defending the proceedings. In addition, it appeared that witnesses on behalf of the second and third defendants may be based in the UK, making Ireland more convenient for them.

• The public interest in relation to the publications the subject of the dispute is predominantly, but not exclusively, focused on events in the United States. This is relevant to the defence which the defendants intend to pursue and was a factor that weighed in favour of the United States being the appropriate forum.

When weighing these conflicting factors in the balance, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that there was a strong basis to conclude that Ireland was clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum than a venue within the United States. Of particular significance was the fact that the plaintiffs' claim was confined to publications occurring in Ireland.

InDelany, which concerned two sets of proceedings also involving allegations of defamation, the Irish High Court considered applications in respect of service outside of the jurisdiction and FNC. In relation to a Qatar based defendant, it held that the defendant had discharged the burden to successfully bring an FNC application as it identified an alternate jurisdiction that was clearly and distinctly more appropriate. The court held that the relevant proceedings were clearly more closely connected with France than with Ireland, particularly in circumstances where there was no evidence of publication or re-publication of the alleged defamatory material in Ireland.

Conclusion

As noted by the court in Trafalgar, “conveniens” in these circumstances does not translate simply as “convenient” but rather reflects the suitability and appropriateness of a jurisdiction to try the case.

Recent decisions of the Irish courts demonstrate that an FNC analysis is highly fact sensitive, and the court will weigh all relevant factors in the round to determine whether another forum is more appropriate than Ireland in cases where the doctrine applies. For litigants involved in cross-border disputes, these decisions emphasise the importance of carefully assessing jurisdictional issues before proceedings are issued or challenged.