ABSTRACT
It is strongly arguable that the subject of jurisdiction is now the most important in the sphere of private international law. Even if this broad proposition is not fully accepted, it cannot be sensibly denied that cases giving rise to problems of jurisdiction are now much more important than they were a generation ago. The reasons for this are probably twofold. First, the development of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, in the case law following the judgment of the House of Lords in The Atlantic Star,1 and, secondly, the statutory scheme on jurisdiction introduced by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. Possibly, in a logical world, a textbook would begin first with a treatment of the relevant principles of jurisdiction; however, questions of jurisdiction often turn on problems of domicile, so it is sensible to consider jurisdiction after the relevant general principles. However, in seriously contested litigation, today, questions of jurisdiction will often be the first matters that a judge has to consider. One party may argue that the court possesses jurisdiction and the other party will argue that even if the court does possess jurisdiction then, in the circumstances of the case, it should decline to exercise it. Unless a party establishes that a court possesses jurisdiction, then questions of choice of law will not normally arise.
