CONCLUDED THAT UK WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM
After EWH, a New York resident, filed suit against Anderson & Sheppard Ltd., a "bespoke tailor of choice for men" based out of London, the latter moved to dismiss the case on “forum non conveniens” or “inconvenient forum” grounds. And when the New York County Supreme Court denied that request, the company appealed.
On its review of the dispute, the Appellate Division, First Department, reiterated the factors that typically govern such applications, and noted that a court may consider "the burden on the New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative forum in which plaintiff may bring suit …. No one factor is controlling"
In this instance, the AD1 thought that Anderson & Sheppard had no “nexus” to New York. And while EWH resided here, “Anderson, its documents, and the witnesses are all located in the United Kingdom. The dispute involves an accounting of a British private company and will likely involve the application of British law to determine what duty, if any, is owed to plaintiff. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has a stronger interest than New York in the actions, duties, and governance of its companies[.]
Given those considerations, the AD1 “unanimously reversed” the underlying determination and dismissed the case.
Would you have dressed that up any differently?
# # #
DECISION