Accessibility Skip to Global Navigation Skip to Local Navigation Skip to Content Skip to Search Skip to Site Map

Articles for the keyword(s) "Double actionability"

"New Zealand Conflict of Laws – A Bird’s Eye View"

FM Auburn and PRH Webb, 1977

In this section of an overview of New Zealand Conflict of Laws, the impact of the Accident Compensation Scheme on transnational tort litigation is considered. The authors discuss the interpretation and application of the double actionability rule for tort within the context of the bar on proceedings for damages in terms of the Accident Compensation Act 1972, with specific reference to the problem of foreigners’ loss of earnings.

^ Top of page

"Tort Choice of Law in New Zealand: Recommendations for Reform"

Elsabe Schoeman, 2004

This article provides a detailed analysis of the double actionability rule and its flexible exception as applied to transnational tort issues in New Zealand. The author explores the value and significance of jurisdiction- and rule-selecting approaches and, against the background of reforms in other Anglo-Common Law jurisdictions, recommends the adoption of the lex loci delicti with a “proper law” exception for New Zealand.

^ Top of page

"New Zealand Conflict of Laws – A Bird’s Eye View"

FM Auburn and PRH Webb, 1978

In this section of an overview of New Zealand Conflict of Laws, the impact of the Accident Compensation Scheme on transnational tort litigation is considered. The authors discuss the interpretation and application of the double actionability rule for tort within the context of the bar on proceedings for damages in terms of the Accident Compensation Act 1972, with specific reference to the problem of foreigners’ loss of earnings.

^ Top of page

"Double Actionability and the Choice of Law"

Nicky Richardson, 2002

The double actionability rule is the New Zealand tort choice of law rule. This article explains what the “double actionability” requirements are, and how they have been applied by the House of Lords and the Privy Council. The author spends considerable time discussing the House of Lords decision in Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company, pointing out that this case raises more problems than it solves. The author concludes that the double actionability rule did not produce any unjust results prior to the Kuwait case and should therefore be retained as the New Zealand conflict rule.

^ Top of page

“Third (Anglo-Common Law) Countries and Rome II: Dilemma or Deliverance”

Elsabe Schoeman, 2011

The Rome II Regulation deals with choice of law in tort. The article examines the value of this Regulation vis-à-vis third (non-EU Anglo-Common law) countries, analysing the unique EU environment and the continuous movement towards uniformity and certainty. The author discusses the general choice of law regime laid down in Article 4 of the Regulation and applies it to two famous Anglo-Common law cases: Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd and Harding v Wealands, concluding that these cases would probably have been decided differently under Rome II. The article concludes that Rome II may indeed have comparative value for these third countries and that its importance should not be underestimated.

^ Top of page

"When in Rome (II): Jurisdiction, choice of law and foreign copyright infringement in New Zealand courts"

Adam Holden, 2016

The author advocates for reform of the New Zealand approach to cases involving foreign copyright infringement.

^ Top of page

"Reform of Choice of Law Rules for Tort"

Jack Wass and Maria Hook, 2017

The authors comment upon various aspects of the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. The Bill abolishes the long-standing double actionability rule governing the choice of law in tort claims in New Zealand. The approach mandated by the Bill is that the New Zealand courts apply the lex loci delicti, with a flexible exception where the case is substantially more closely connected with another country. The authors explain the Bill’s approach and argue that it is sufficiently versatile to cover claims such as defamation and breach of intellectual property rights. The authors suggest that the Bill should exclude the doctrine of renvoi, given that the function of choice of law rules is to identify which country’s law New Zealand courts, not foreign courts, should apply to a particular claim. Finally, the authors recommend that the Bill allow for future common law developments in cases where parties agree as to the law that should apply to tort claims arising within their relationship.