Common law courts refuse to enforce jurisdiction agreements when they find “strong cause” or “strong reasons” not to. Why is this so? Accounts describing this “strong cause” test as frustration or remedial discretion seem incorrect, while accounts describing it as a prohibition against ousters of the court’s jurisdiction seem incomplete. Here, I argue that the strong cause test is a prohibition against contracts ousting the forum non conveniens test. Yet, under forum non conveniens’ own logic, jurisdiction agreements should generally be given significant weight, because they generally reflect parties’ well-informed views about the most appropriate forum for their dispute. This account explains various features of the strong cause test, like the relevance of foreseeability, third party interests, and parties’ respective bargaining powers. It also holds implications for the test’s applicability to breaches of non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements and in applications for contractual anti-suit injunctions.
