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.
RJ Paterson, 1989
The author reviews significant Conflict of Laws cases from 1988 and 1989. The review focuses on the reception of the doctrine of forum non conveniens into New Zealand law and explores the significance and implications of this doctrine within the context of the existence and exercise of jurisdiction in commercial, as well as matrimonial and international child abduction cases.
Justin Hogan-Doran, 2003
This article examines when and where on-line contracts are made in an attempt to define the place of contracting as one of the bases of jurisdiction in a number of Common Law systems, including New Zealand. Within this context the author considers the continued application of the postal acceptance rule to on-line contracts with reference to allocation of risk. The author argues for a conflict of laws meaning to be given to where a contract is made. In regard to jurisdictional bases, forum conveniens should be adopted as a basis of jurisdiction, instead of merely controlling the exercise of jurisdiction.
Paul Myburgh and Elsabe Schoeman, 2004
This article presents an analysis of the interpretation and application of the good arguable case on the merits test within the context of RR 219 and R 220 by New Zealand courts. Considering the differences between the New Zealand and English statutory jurisdictional dispensations, the authors criticise the New Zealand courts’ adoption of English authority in this context. The article also questions the wisdom of the separate leave regimes in RR 219 (without leave) and 220 (with leave) and calls for a redrafting of the rules.
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.
"Damages and Territorial Jurisdiction: Judicial Interpretation of Rule 219(a) and the Case for Reform"
Giora Shapira, 2006
The author critically examines New Zealand case law on R 219(a) with specific reference to: (1) the judicial creation of a “good arguable case on the merits” test, and (2) the broad interpretation of “damages” within the context of trans-national tort actions. The author advocates law reform through the abolition of the “good arguable case” requirement and a reformulation of R 219(a), based on a comparison with other jurisdictions, to bring it in line with modern international trends.
RJ Paterson, 1989
This article presents an in-depth account of the origin and development of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in England and its subsequent reception in New Zealand. The author analyses the interpretation and application of forum non conveniens in New Zealand case law with reference to service both within and out of New Zealand. Policy considerations, crucial to the exercise of the courts’ discretion in forum non conveniens matters, are discussed and evaluated in detail. The author concludes with a critical evaluation of the allocation and extent of the burden of proof in forum non conveniens cases and proposes a correction to the plaintiff-biased way in which the doctrine has been applied in New Zealand.
Elsabe Schoeman, 2010
The New Zealand High Court Rules in respect of service abroad without leave (r 6.27) now incorporate the “serious issue to be tried on the merits” test. This article examines the important difference between the “good arguable case” and “serious issue to be tried on the merits” tests using Lord Goff’s authoritative statements in Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran. The author urges the Courts to embrace Lord Goff’s clarification as an opportunity to provide certainty and accuracy in relation to the interpretation and application of the “serious issue to be tried on the merits” test.
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.
Maya Mandery, 2013
This article discusses the new analytical framework on assumption of jurisdiction in tort actions involving foreign defendants set by the Supreme Court of Canada in the three cases: Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda 2012 SCC 17,  1 SCR 572; Editions Ecosociete Inc v Banro Corp 2012 SCC 18,  1 SCR 636 and Breeden v Black 2012 SCC 19,  1 SCR 666. The framework ensures that courts will have presumptive jurisdiction over multi-jurisdictional disputes concerning tort claims in cases where the tort was committed within the province. The clear separation and identification of the factors relevant for both the existence of jurisdiction over tort claims and the inquiry into the discretionary exercise of jurisdiction, provides useful comparative perspectives for New Zealand courts when dealing with multiple-jurisdictional tort claims.
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.