What are the differences between forum non conveniens and res judicata in international litigation?

In international litigation, two important concepts to understand are forum non conveniens and res judicata. Forum non conveniens refers to a court’s discretionary power to decline jurisdiction if another court is more appropriate for the case. This concept is based on public policy factors, including the location of the parties and witnesses as well as the availability of evidence. Res judicata is the legal principle that any prior judgment that has been made about a case is binding on the parties in future litigation. This ensures that parties cannot litigate the same issue more than once. In Delaware, the standard for forum non conveniens is outlined in the Delaware Superior Court Civil Rules. The Court must consider the convenience and ease of access to sources of proof, enforceability of a judgment if one is granted, the cost of litigation, the familiarity of the court with the governing law, the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings, and any interest in having local disputes resolved at home. A court may also consider other factors if they are relevant to the case. On the other hand, Delaware follows the common law on res judicata, which is based on the Restatement of Judgments and other jurisprudence. In summary, forum non conveniens is used to determine where to hold a trial, while res judicata is a legal principle that prevents relitigation of the same issues in a dispute. In Delaware, both concepts are governed by court rules and common law, respectively.

Related FAQs

What are the differences between forum non conveniens and res judicata in international litigation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts