Skip to content

Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)475-491
Number of pages17
JournalInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly
Issue number2
Early online date27 Apr 2016
DateAccepted/In press - 6 Oct 2015
DateE-pub ahead of print - 27 Apr 2016
DatePublished (current) - Apr 2016


A quarter of a century on from the High Court of Australia’s landmark ruling in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd, this article examines the application of the modern-day forum (non) conveniens doctrine in Australia. It outlines the prevailing view in the academic literature which claims that the Australian doctrine is functionally different from its English counterpart, articulated in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd. Through a detailed assessment of the case law and commentary, this article questions the widely-accepted orthodoxy and demonstrates it to be unpersuasive. The article’s key contribution is to reconceptualise our understanding of the forum (non) conveniens doctrine in Australia. In this respect, its main contention is that while, theoretically, there may be a narrow conceptual space between Spiliada and Voth, it is so narrow as to be practically non-existent.

Additional information

Accepted for publication: 6 October 2015

    Research areas

  • Private international law, jurisdiction, discretionary (non-)exercise of jurisdiction, Australian forum (non) conveniens doctrine, English forum (non) conveniens doctrine

Download statistics

No data available



  • ICLQ_1

    Rights statement: This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the article entitled "Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine". Any references must be made to the definitive/final article, published in (2016) 65(2) ICLQ

    Accepted author manuscript, 352 KB, PDF document


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups