The original trial court and the appellate court adopted a negative view, and their reasoning was roughly as follows: (1) By analogy with the provisions of Article 15, Paragraph 1 and Article 20, Proversial, of the Civil Procedure Law, when the domiciles of the defendants in a joint lawsuit involving tort are not in the jurisdiction of the same court, only the court in the place where the joint tort occurred has joint jurisdiction. Therefore, this case should be under the jurisdiction of the Vietnamese court; (2) The litigation interests involved in this case are more closely related to Vietnam, and it is more conducive to the substantive fairness between the parties and the speed and economy of the procedure to be heard in the Vietnamese court.

After the plaintiff filed a second appeal, the Supreme Court issued its first remand ruling, holding that the High Court’s ruling, which cited the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding jurisdiction as its legal basis, conflicted with the nature of international judicial jurisdiction norms: “The plaintiff’s decision to directly determine which country’s court has common jurisdiction based on the provisions of our country’s law, thereby denying the judicial jurisdiction of the country where the defendant resides due to the connection factor of the defendant’s domicile, is inconsistent with the aforementioned international judicial jurisdiction norms, which only directly stipulate under what circumstances a domestic court can adjudicate a certain foreign-related dispute, and lacks appropriateness, and cannot serve as a basis for determining international judicial jurisdiction.”

The appellate court subsequently issued its first revised ruling, holding that: the Chinese courts have international jurisdiction over the 13 defendants, including Formosa Plastics Corporation, which has offices, places of business, or domiciles in Taiwan; however, they have no international jurisdiction over the 11 foreign legal persons and natural persons, including Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation and other shareholders.

It should be emphasized that the plaintiff’s legal team has consistently urged the court to consider the following:

1. The victims were suppressed by the Vietnamese government and could not enjoy the protection of fair litigation in Vietnam.

   The victims in this case were subjected to violent suppression, improper arrest, and detention by the Vietnamese government during the litigation process. Furthermore, the Vietnamese court participated in negotiations between Formosa Plastics and the Vietnamese government before the case was filed, suggesting it may have already taken a special stance on the case and was not independent. Therefore, requiring the victims to litigate in Vietnam is neither substantive fairness nor procedural economy.

2. This case is sufficiently related to Taiwan, and the Taiwanese court should have jurisdiction.
   Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Company is a company established by the Formosa Plastics Group in Vietnam. Except for Japan Steel, its shareholders are all Taiwanese companies, including Formosa Plastics, Formosa Chemicals, Taiwan Petrochemical, Sinosteel, etc. According to the principle of “defeat for the original”, this case is fully implicated in Taiwan.

   Furthermore, the Formosa Plastics Group adopts a highly centralized decision-making model, and all major policies and investment projects of the companies within the group must be discussed and decided through the administrative center. The operational details of Formosa Plastics Yuegang Company that are closely related to this lawsuit are all coordinated by the Formosa Plastics General Management Office. Therefore, the important decision-making evidence, construction plans, project contracting, project management, and key operation and management evidence of environmental safety and health in this lawsuit are all concentrated in Taiwan, so this lawsuit is closely related to our country.