Although the doctrine of forum non conveniens is unknown in Continental legal systems, Community law does not prevent English courts from preserving their discretion to stay proceedings, in conflicts involving a defendant domiciliary, in favor of more appropriate courts in a non-Contracting State. Where the provisions of the Brussels Convention do not address a legal question, the answer must be sought in the objectives and scheme of the Convention. The English Court of Appeals in Harrods properly understood that Community law does not require ritualistic reliance on the Convention's jurisdiction conferring provisions in cases involving a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State and the jurisdiction of a court in a non-Contracting State.
Adam R. Schwartz,
In re Harrods Ltd.: The Brussels Convention and the Proper Application of Forum Non Conveniens to Non-Contracting States,
15 Fordham Int'l L.J. 174
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol15/iss1/5