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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Exclusive jurisdiction clauses"

"Conflict of Laws"

RJ Paterson, 1992

The author reviews significant Conflict of Laws cases from 1990 and 1992. The review focuses on the existence of jurisdiction, submission to jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction, as well as the relevance and application of forum non conveniens with reference to protest to jurisdiction, jurisdiction clauses, lis alibi pendens, service within New Zealand, and summary judgment proceedings, as well as family law proceedings and international child abduction cases. The author also covers the enforcement of foreign judgments at common law, as well as by statute.

^ Top of page

"Jurisdiction Clauses"

AA Tarr, 1980

In this note on Carvalho v Hull Blyth (Angola) Ltd [1979] 3 All ER 280, the author discusses the factors relevant to a discretionary stay in the case of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The author also explores the significance of an express forum selection with respect to the establishment of the proper law of a contract in the absence of an express choice of law.

^ Top of page

"Jurisdiction Clauses"

AA Tarr, 1981

In this note on Carvalho v Hull Blyth (Angola) Ltd [1979] 3 All ER 280, the author discusses the factors relevant to a discretionary stay in the case of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The author also explores the significance of an express forum selection with respect to the establishment of the proper law of a contract in the absence of an express choice of law.

^ Top of page

"Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses – A New Zealand Perspective on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements"

G Shapira and R Lazarovitch, 2008

Exclusive jurisdiction clauses are a frequently used tool in transnational contracts. The parties agree on a forum that would hear any potential dispute. This should ensure certainty and predictability for all parties. However, the complexity of the New Zealand rules and the jurisdictional discretion of the courts lead to often unpredictable results when exclusive jurisdiction clauses are encountered. The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements aims to address such problems with clear rules that promote certainty in commercial dealings and validate party autonomy. Even though the Convention is not free from criticism, the authors conclude that New Zealand should nonetheless adopt it.

^ Top of page

"Trading with the US – Forum and Choice of Law Clauses"

John Fellas, 1996

In a brief comment on Telemedia Partners Worldwide Ltd v Hamelin Limited SDNY, February 6, 1996, the author provides guidelines for New Zealand practitioners in regard to the drafting of suitable jurisdiction and choice of law clauses in international contracts involving the US.

^ Top of page

"The Hague and the Ditch: The Trans-Tasman Judicial Area and the Choice of Court Convention"

Reid Mortensen, 2009

Following an analysis of the history and current context of the proposed Trans-Tasman regime (within the CER framework), this article explores the comparative value of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements for Australia and New Zealand. Although the Convention and the proposed Trans-Tasman regime are profoundly different, the author concludes that the adoption of the Convention would provide an opportunity for both countries to increase certainty in international trade and commercial relationships. More specifically, reference to the Convention would address the risk of lis pendens and incompatible judgments in the proposed Trans-Tasman regime.

^ Top of page

“The Australia and New Zealand Judgments Scheme: A Common Law Judicial Area”

Oliver L Knöfel and Reid G Mortensen, 2011

This article provides a comprehensive background to the enactment of the trans-Tasman Proceedings Acts in both Australia and New Zealand within the context of the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (1983) between the two countries. It also provides a comparative perspective on the trans-Tasman vis-à-vis European Union, other European and Hague Conference arrangements in the area of cross-border jurisdiction and judgments. Discussing the details of the new trans-Tasman scheme, the authors identify a number of potential obstacles, one of those being the very different accident compensation schemes obtaining in New Zealand and Australia. On the whole, however, the scheme promises to be most successful in the regulation of trans-Tasman jurisdiction and judgments.

^ Top of page

“Conflict of Laws”

Elsabe Schoeman, 2013

This review of New Zealand cases and other developments covers the first series of cases dealing with the new High Court Rules, which came into operation on 1 February 2009. The review also covers the new Limitation Act 2010 and the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010, as well as a new case on the jurisdiction of a New Zealand court in respect of the infringement of a foreign (US)-registered patent.

^ Top of page

“Rethinking Jurisdiction Clauses in New Zealand: The Hague Convention and Beyond”

Michelle Ong, 2013

In this article, the author advocates for the routine enforcement of jurisdiction clauses based on the fundamental principles of respect for party autonomy and freedom of contract. The author criticises the courts’ current approach to the categorisation of jurisdiction clauses under the labels of exclusive and non-exclusive and suggests an alternative, more nuanced approach. Further criticism is focused on the courts’ failure to apply consistent tests in deciding whether or not to exercise jurisdiction. The Trans-Tasman Treaty is commended for its insistence on stricter enforcement of jurisdiction clauses however the author argues that there is scope to go further. In this context the author compares the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the Trans-Tasman Treaty.

^ Top of page

"A View from Australia's Regional Partners - Recent Developments in New Zealand and Singapore"

Elsabe Schoeman and Adeline Chong, 2014

The authors consider recent conflict of laws developments in New Zealand and Singapore. The review of New Zealand developments covers the first series of cases dealing with the new High Court Rules, which came into operation on 1 February 2009. The review also covers the new Limitation Act 2010 and the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010, as well as a new case on the jurisdiction of a New Zealand court in respect of the infringement of a foreign (US)-registered patent.