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 South Carolina, 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 that another forum is significantly more appropriate for the resolution of the case. This doctrine is applied even when the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but the case lacks a substantial connection to South Carolina. 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 convenience of the parties and witnesses, while public interest factors could involve the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion or the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. Ultimately, the decision to invoke forum non conveniens lies within the discretion of the trial court, balancing the interests of all parties involved.