Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In Hawaii, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the forum chosen by the plaintiff is highly inconvenient and there is another more appropriate jurisdiction available. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and judicial efficiency, and it can be invoked even when the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. While a resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, this preference can be overridden if the defendant can show that both private and public interest factors strongly favor the case being heard in a different jurisdiction. Private interest factors might include the location of evidence or witnesses, while public interest factors could involve the administrative burden on local courts and the interest of a community in having localized disputes decided within its borders. Ultimately, the decision to dismiss a case based on forum non conveniens lies within the discretion of the trial court, which must balance the interests of all parties involved.