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 Virginia, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the chosen forum is significantly inconvenient for the parties involved, even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While a Virginia resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, it is not absolute. The court will consider both private interest factors, such as the convenience for parties and witnesses, and public interest factors, such as administrative and trial efficiency. If the court finds that another forum is more appropriate because it has a stronger connection to the case or because the interests of justice demand it, the court may dismiss the case in favor of the more suitable jurisdiction. This ensures that the litigation process is not burdensome to the parties and that the case is tried in the most efficient and fair location.