Stay of Proceedings in UK Law

If contracting parties agree to give a particular court exclusive jurisdiction to rule on claims between those parties, and a claim falling within the scope of the agreement is made in proceedings in a forum other than that which the parties have agreed, the English court will ordinarily exercise its discretion (whether by granting a stay of proceedings in England, or by restraining the prosecution of proceedings in the non-contractual forum abroad, or by such other procedural order as is appropriate in the circumstances) to secure compliance with the contractual bargain, unless the party suing in the non-contractual forum (the burden being on him) can show strong reasons for suing in that forum.

He must satisfy the court that the continuance of the action would work an injustice because it would be oppressive or vexatious to him or would be an abuse of the court in some other way, that expression being understood in a broad and reasonable sense and without any necessary moral connotations, and also that the stay would not cause an injustice to the plaintiff. He must satisfy the court that the continuance of the action would work an injustice because it would be oppressive or vexatious to him or would be an abuse of the court in some other way, that expression being understood in a broad and reasonable sense and without any necessary moral connotations, and also that the stay would not cause an injustice to the plaintiff. He must satisfy the court that the continuance of the action would work an injustice because it would be oppressive or vexatious to him or would be an abuse of the court in some other way, that expression being understood in a broad and reasonable sense and without any necessary moral connotations, and also that the stay would not cause an injustice to the plaintiff. He must satisfy the court that the continuance of the action would work an injustice because it would be oppressive or vexatious to him or would be an abuse of the court in some other way, that expression being understood in a broad and reasonable sense and without any necessary moral connotations, and also that the stay would not cause an injustice to the plaintiff.

In Avon, Glidewell LJ said that the phrase "stay of proceedings" must be given a wide interpretation so as apply to administrative decisions. In my view, it should also be given a wide interpretation so as to enhance the effectiveness of the judicial review jurisdiction. That would indeed be regrettable, and, if correct, would expose a serious shortcoming in the armoury of powers available to the court when granting permission to apply for judicial review.

(1) The basic principle is that a stay will only be granted on the ground of forum non conveniens where the court is satisfied that there is some other available forum, having competent jurisdiction, which is the appropriate forum for the trial of the action, i.e. in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice.

But the underlying principle requires that regard must be had to the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice; and these considerations may lead to a different conclusion in other cases. For example, it would not, I think, normally be wrong to allow a plaintiff to keep the benefit of security obtained by commencing proceedings here, while at the same time granting a stay of proceedings in this country to enable the action to proceed in the appropriate forum.

Secondly, in considering whether a stay should be granted the Court must take into account (i) Any advantage to the Plaintiff; (ii) Any disadvantage to the defendant: this is the critical equation, and in some cases it will be a difficult one to establish. Generally this is done by an instinctive process�that is what discretion, in its essence, is. A bona fide advantage to a plaintiff is a solid weight in the scale, often a decisive weight, but not always so.