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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Forum conveniens"

"Forum Conveniens – Basis of Jurisdiction in the Commonwealth"

BD Inglis, 1964

The author explores the Anglo-Common Law distinction between forum conveniens, as a prerequisite to assuming jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens, as a defence plea. An analysis of relevant case law illustrates that, in both forum conveniens and forum non conveniens scenarios, the same factors are considered and therefore forum conveniens constitutes the true basis of jurisdiction.

^ Top of page

"Voth in the Family Court: Forum Conveniens in Property and Custody Litigation"

PE Nygh, 1993

The author examines the effect of Voth v Manildra Flower Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 on international litigation in the Family Court of Australia. One of the cases discussed is the Trans-Tasman litigation in Gilmore, where proceedings were commenced in Australia and New Zealand. The article focuses on the consequences of disparate forum conveniens/forum non conveniens doctrines, coupled with different matrimonial property regimes, in Australia and New Zealand.

^ Top of page

"Case Comment: Musashi Pty Ltd v Moore"

Gordon Anderson, 2002

This brief comment on Musashi Pty Ltd v Moore, Employment Court, 9 October 2001 (AC 43A/01) Judge Colgan, focuses on the undesirability of allowing choice of a foreign proper law, as well as a foreign forum, in an employment contract where the work is to be performed in New Zealand. The author proposes legislative intervention to remedy the situation.

^ Top of page

"Conflict of Laws"

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.

^ Top of page

"Jurisdiction, the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens, and Choice of Law in Conflict of Laws"

BD Inglis, 1965

With reference to the English law of jurisdiction, the author draws a clear distinction between forum conveniens as a prerequisite for leave to serve abroad (and the establishment of jurisdiction) and forum conveniens as a motion to strike out or stay an action after the defendant has been served within the jurisdiction, the latter having developed within the context of abuse of process proceedings. The author also explores the relationship between jurisdiction and choice of law, as well as the onus of proof in forum conveniens cases.

^ Top of page

"Service Outside the Jurisdiction"

FM Auburn, 1970

The author analyses RR 48 and 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure (service abroad with leave), with specific reference to claims in tort and contract, against the background of the corresponding English rules. This detailed analysis of the factors relevant to the discretion to grant leave, draws extensively on relevant English case law, as well as case law from other comparable jurisdictions.

^ Top of page

"The Internet – A New World without Frontiers"

Clive Elliot, 1998

With reference to American case law, the author discusses jurisdictional issues relating to internet activity. Consideration is given to the potential implications of the application of New Zealand rules of jurisdiction within this context.

^ Top of page

"Judgments Extension under CER"

Reid Mortensen, 1999

This article discusses the Closer Economic Relations (CER) Trade Agreement entered into between New Zealand and Australia in 1983 with specific reference to the removal of legal impediments to trade. The author criticises the CER scheme as it does little to improve the efficiency in respect of trans-Tasman judgment extensions. An in-depth analysis follows into alternative mechanisms available for judgment enforcement, with specific reference to the European and Australian models. The author concludes with proposals for the adoption of a “direct jurisdiction” model for the CER scheme.

^ 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

"Forum Non Conveniens in New Zealand"

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.

^ Top of page

"Global Disputes – Jurisdiction, Interim Relief and Enforcement of Judgments"

David Goddard, 1999

This contribution contains extracts from a paper prepared by David Goddard for the NZLS triennial conference. The focus is on cross-border disputes, especially trans-Tasman disputes, and the problems involved in the enforcement of interim orders and final judgments. The inadequacy of legislation in this area is highlighted and accession to and participation in relevant international conventions are recommended.

^ Top of page

"Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Tort"

Craig Brown, 1976

The author examines the confusion caused by the double-limbed tort conflict rule (Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1) in regard to jurisdiction and choice of law, as well as the significance of the "proper law of the tort" exception (Boys v Chaplin [1968] 2 QB 1). While emphasising the distinction between jurisdiction and choice of law, the author points to the interaction between jurisdiction and choice of law in order to find the appropriate forum as well as the appropriate lex causae for cross-border tort disputes. The jurisdictional doctrine of forum conveniens (where leave to serve abroad is required) and the "proper law of the tort" for choice of law purposes may provide the required degree of flexibility in tort choice of law.

^ 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

“A Trans-Tasman Judicial Area: Civil Jurisdictions and Judgments in the Single Economic Market”

Reid Mortensen, 2010

This article provides a close analysis of the trans-Tasman civil jurisdiction and judgment scheme that exists between New Zealand and Australia. Analysis focuses on comparing and contrasting Australia’s domestic conflict of laws rules with the scheme set up by the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010. In particular the schemes failure to address issues of lis pendens is focused on. However, the author is clear that the shortcomings of the scheme should not be over-emphasised.

^ Top of page

“The Choice of Law Agreement as a Reason for Exercising Jurisdiction”

Maria Hook, 2014

The author examines the effect of choice of law agreements on the courts’ exercise of jurisdiction. The focus is on whether English courts should exercise jurisdiction to uphold choice of law agreements that would otherwise be defeated in a competing forum. The author argues that the two main reasons advanced in support of this approach, that courts should prioritise the choice of law rules of the forum and that the parties should be held to their agreement, are not justifiable in principle. The author goes on to analyse how these reasons risk undermining the principle of close connection and party autonomy.

^ 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.