Should the Spiliada Test Be Revised?

This article examines recent English authorities concerning the forum (non) conveniens doctrine. It seeks to demonstrate that, largely as a consequence of a disproportionately broad discretionary framework under its second limb, the doctrine’s application has led to numerous problems. The article argues that, for both pragmatic and theoretical reasons, the status quo cannot be maintained. In this respect, its key contribution is to identify a doctrinal avenue through which to limit (rather than completely discard) the court’s discretion at the second stage. The article’s basic thesis is that the court’s discretion under the doctrine’s second limb should be curtailed in line with the doctrinal framework underpinning the protection of a person’s right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (as defined in expulsion cases).