dissenting.
I must respectfiilly dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that existing precedent requires that venue decisions are not reviewable by means of an extraordinary writ and that the denial of such a writ of prohibition or mandamus by the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.
Skidmore v. Meade, Ky., 676 S.W.2d 793 (1984), correctly determined that a decision to transfer a ease on the grounds of forum non conveniens is not reviewable by a writ of mandamus.
The granting of mandamus is discretionary, and ordinarily is not available to question venue for the reasons that the remedy by appeal is adequate if any error as to venue is committed. Skidmore v. Meade, supra.
If any decision was erroneous as a matter of law or as an abuse of discretion, the question is reviewable on appeal after a final judgment. In similar eases, this Court has held that where there is no irreparable harm and the defendants have an adequate remedy by appeal, a writ of prohibition or mandamus is not appropriate. See Fischer v. State Bd. of Elections, Ky., 847 S.W.2d 718 (1993); Pettit v. Raikes, Ky., 858 S.W.2d 171 (1993), and many other published decisions of this Court.
The specific facts of this case indicate that it was correctly transferred under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The only connection with Jefferson County is that Maker’s Mark has an office there. The appellants and their supervisors, who would probably be witnesses, are employed in Marion County. Personnel records, seniority lists and other documents are also maintained in Marion County. The trial judge properly transferred this action on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
The decision of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.