In Re: Union Carbide Gas Plant Disaster

Facts
On the night of 23 December 1984, a gas leak occurred at the pesticide plant of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in Bhopal, India resulting in the
deaths of more than 2,000 people and injuries to more than 200,000 others. . Thereafter, the India passed a law giving the Indian government the
exclusive right to represent the victims of the disaster. As thus, the Indian government filed a complaint before a New York district court. The Union
Carbide Corporation (UCC) filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens and lack of personality. The district court granted the
motion on three conditions, namely, that UCC: (1) consent to the jurisdiction of Indian courts and waive defenses based on the Statute of Limitations;
(2) agree to the satisfy the judgement of the Indian court, provided it complied with the requirements of due process; and (3) be subject to discovery
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the US. Consequently, the Indian government filed sued the UCIL and the UCC before the a district
court in India. The UCC appealed the conditions.
Arguments for the Defendant
While Indian courts may provide an adequate alternative forum, they adhere to standards of due process much lower than that followed in the US.
Hence, US courts must supervise the proceedings before Indian courts.
Issue
Whether or not the dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens is proper.
Held
Yes. The Indian courts are adequate alternative fora.
Ratio Decidendi
Almost all of the estimated 200,000 plaintiffs are citizens and residents of India who have revoked their representation by an American counsel in
favor of the Indian government, which now prefers Indian courts. Further, the UCC has already consented to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
Indian courts. All the witnesses and evidence are likewise in India.
As to the conditions, the first is valid in order to secure the viability of the Indian courts as alternate fora. The second is problematic as it gives the
impression that foreign judgments the UCC's consent is necessary in order for the judgement of the Indian courts to be enforceable in New York. The
laws of New York, in fact, recognizes that a judgment rendered by a foreign court may be enforced in that State except if such judgment was
rendered in violation of due process or without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The request of UCC of supervision by US courts of
Indian courts is untenable. The power of US courts cannot extend beyond their territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, once US courts dismiss a case on
the ground of forum non conveniens, they lose any further jurisdiction over the case, except in case of an action for enforcement later on. Denial of
due process may, however, constitute a defense against the enforcement of the Indian judgment. The third condition is likewise invalid. Basic justice
dictates that both parties must be given equal access to evidence in each other's possession. Hence, both parties maybe subjected to the modes of
discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on equal terms subject to approval by Indian courts.

OVERVIEW: After an industrial accident in the country of India resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries, American lawyers filed lawsuits on
behalf of Indian clients in the United States. The numerous actions were consolidated by the district court. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The court granted the motion and held that defendant must consent to submit to the
jurisdiction of the courts of India. The court reasoned that the Indian courts had the ability to administer the case. Moreover, the court held that
administration would be less burdensome in India because of the availability of the relevant, material, and necessary evidence within that country.
Furthermore, the court concluded that no American interest in the outcome of the litigation outweighed the interest of India in applying Indian law and
Indian values to the task of resolving this case.
OUTCOME: The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens under the condition that defendant consent to
submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign country where the tort took place. CORE
TERMS: plant, conveniens, discovery, alternative forum, legal system, private interest, training, public interest, leak, manager, amicus, drawings,
consolidated, disaster, chemical, engineer, package, unfavorable, technology, weigh, Bhopal Act, doctrine of forum, choice of law, tort law, personnel,
regulated, tragedy, engineering, detailing, manufactured

International Law > Dispute Resolution > Conflicts of Laws > General Overview [HN1] The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to
decline jurisdiction, even when jurisdiction is authorized by a general venue statute.
[HN2] A district court is advised to determine first whether the proposed alternative forum is adequate. Then, as a matter within its sound discretion,
the district court should consider relevant public and private interest factors, and reasonably balance those factors, in order to determine whether
dismissal is favored.

[HN3] When the plaintiff is foreign, however, the assumption of deference to plaintiff's choice of forum is much less reasonable. Because the central
purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff's choice deserves less deference.
[HN4] The Indian Code of Civil Procedure allows the court to add additional parties if the presence of those parties is necessary in order to enable
the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit
[HN5] An important consideration under the heading of private interests is the availability of compulsory process for attendance of willing, and the
cost of obtaining attendance of unwilling, witnesses.
[HN6] The unavailability of compulsory process for foreign non-party witnesses, of whom there are many, such as would ensure their presence at a
trial in this country, the high cost of transporting the large number of foreign nationals to the United States, as well as the need to translate their
testimony should they appear, all support the argument favoring dismissal of an action on forum non conveniens grounds.
[HN7] Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a
burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many
persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report
only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity
case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in
conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.
[HN8] When a regulated industry is involved, the country where the injury occurs has a particularly strong interest in product liability litigation. Though
no single factor should be determinative in ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, the nature of the product and its status as regulated or not must
be considered.
[HN9] The need of an American court to apply foreign law is an appropriate concern on a forum non conveniens motion, and can in fact point toward
dismissal. Especially when all other factors favor dismissal, the need to apply foreign law is a significant consideration on this type of motion.
[HN10] A federal court is bound to apply the choice of law rules of the state in which an action was originally brought; even upon transfer to a
different district, the transferee district court must be obligated to apply the state law that would have been applied if there had been no change of
venue
[HN11] The "governmental interest" analysis, employed by many jurisdictions, requires a court to look to the question of which state has the most
compelling interest in the outcome of the case. The lex loci delicti analysis used in other jurisdictions indicates that the law of the state where the tort
occurred should be applied. Other states apply the "most significant relationship" test, or "weight of contacts" test, which evaluate in which state most
of the events constituting the tort occurred.
[HN12] The presence in a foreign country of the overwhelming majority of the witnesses and evidence, both documentary and real, would by itself
suggest that a foreign country is the most convenient forum for a consolidated case. The additional presence in a foreign country of all but the less
than handful of claimants underscores the convenience of holding trial in a foreign country. All of the private interest factors weigh heavily toward
dismissal of a case on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
[HN13] Certain public interest factors also favor dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The administrative burden of immense litigation
can unfairly tax any American tribunal. The cost to American taxpayers of supporting litigation in the United States would be excessive. When
another, adequate and more convenient forum so clearly exists, there is no reason to press the United States judiciary to the limits of its capacity
where no American interest in the outcome of litigation outweighs the interest of a foreign country in applying that country's law and values to the
task of resolving a case.