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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Extraterritoriality"

“Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG: Statutory Packages in Transnational Personal Injury Cases”

Elsabe Schoeman, 2015

The assessment of damages in transnational personal injury claims poses a unique challenge for private international law theory and practice. Traditionally viewed as a procedural matter, there are strong reasons for the assessment of damages to be recognised as an integral part of a personal injury statutory package to be governed by the lex causae of the tort. This article questions the characterisation of the assessment of damages as substantive or procedural to determine which law governs such assessment, arguing that Etherton LJ’s approach, focusing on the causal connection between liability and loss, may provide a better approach to statutory packages.

^ Top of page

"Tortious Liability and Conflicts"

Nicky Richardson, 2003

This case note on Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co [2002] 3 All ER 209 (HL) highlights the complexities and uncertainty of the double actionability rule for tort. The application of the public policy exclusion to an expropriatory resolution (which was in breach of public international law rules) presented a unique challenge. The author suggests reform similar to the English Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995.

^ Top of page

"The 'Statutist Trap' and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction"

Maria Hook, 2017

This article explores the problems associated with an exclusive focus by courts on statutory interpretation when determining whether a statute applies to foreign facts, overlooking the application of conflict of laws principles. This focus is referred to as “statutism.” In particular, the author focuses on how statutism risks distortion of established notions of subject-matter jurisdiction in two ways. First, statutism can lead courts to overlook the choice of law process. Courts may conclude that if the relevant statute does not apply they must lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute, overlooking the possibility that they can adjudicate the dispute according to foreign law. Second, statutism, by deciding the question of subject-matter jurisdiction according to statutory interpretation, prevents a proper analysis of whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction according to the external conflict of laws framework.