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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Heads of damages"

"The New Zealand Accident Compensation Scheme: The Statutory Bar and the Conflict of Laws"

Elsabe Schoeman and Rosemary Tobin, 2005

The authors examine the nature and effect of the statutory bar on compensatory damages in the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 within the context of the double actionability rule for transnational torts. The focus is on the aims of the Accident Compensation Scheme and the implications of characterising the statutory bar as either substantive or procedural. With reference to recent developments in regard to the characterisation of comparable rules restricting or barring the recovery of damages, the authors support a substantive characterisation.

^ Top of page

"A Traffic Accident Abroad"

EH Flitton and PRH Webb, 1968

The authors note that, at the time, there had not been a single conflict of laws torts case in any of the higher courts in New Zealand. Against this background, they analyse the House of Lords decision in Boys v Chaplin [1968] 1 All ER 283, pointing to the diversity of thinking that makes this case difficult to apply. The focus is on the general rule of double actionability and the proper law exception, as interpreted in relevant cases leading up to Boys v Chaplin.

^ Top of page

"Tort Choice of Law in New Zealand: Recommendations for Reform"

Elsabe Schoeman, 2004

This article provides a detailed analysis of the double actionability rule and its flexible exception as applied to transnational tort issues in New Zealand. The author explores the value and significance of jurisdiction- and rule-selecting approaches and, against the background of reforms in other Anglo-Common Law jurisdictions, recommends the adoption of the lex loci delicti with a “proper law” exception for New Zealand.

^ 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.