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 New Hampshire, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if holding the trial in New Hampshire would be highly inconvenient for the parties involved, despite the court having personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and judicial efficiency, taking into account various private and public interest factors. While a New Hampshire resident plaintiff's choice of forum is given deference, it is not absolute. A defendant can argue that the case should be dismissed if there is another forum that has a more significant connection to the case and where the interests of justice would be better served. The court will weigh factors such as the location of evidence, the convenience of witnesses, and the burden on the court system. Ultimately, the decision to apply forum non conveniens is at the discretion of the trial court, which will consider whether the case has a substantial connection to New Hampshire or if another jurisdiction is more appropriate.