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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Good arguable case"

"Copyright Infringement in New Zealand Law"

Graeme W Austin, 2000

This article addresses the territoriality of copyright laws in the context of jurisdiction and choice of law. The traditional obstacles to the justiciability of foreign copyright claims in New Zealand, namely the local action jurisdiction rule in regard to foreign immovables and the double actionability tort choice of law rule, are considered in the light of recent developments in the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK. The author concludes that flexibility introduced by Peace v Ove Arup [1999] 1 All ER 769 (CA) may pave the way for New Zealand courts to assume jurisdiction in foreign copyright infringement disputes.

^ Top of page

"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 in Trans-National Cases"

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.

^ Top of page

“Service Abroad without Leave: Taking Seaconsar Seriously’’

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.

^ 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 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.