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 Vermont, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the forum is inconvenient for the parties or witnesses, even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While a Vermont 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 litigation in a different forum. Private interest factors might include the location of evidence, the convenience of the parties, and the availability of witnesses, while public interest factors could involve the administrative difficulties of congested courts, the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, and the familiarity of the forum with the law that needs to be applied. The court will weigh these factors and may dismiss the case if it finds that the case lacks a significant connection to Vermont and that another forum has a more substantial interest in the matter.