Laurette Barnard, 1996
This article presents a detailed analysis of the way in which New Zealand courts determine the objective proper law of a contract in the absence of a choice by the parties. With reference to case law, the author argues that the current practice of determining such proper law on the basis of the “closest and most real connection” test does not translate into certainty and predictability and does not serve the goals of commercial convenience and business efficacy. The author proposes the development of a set of coherent presumptions, or rules subject to flexible exceptions, for each kind of contract.
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  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.