"Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses – A New Zealand Perspective on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements"
G Shapira and R Lazarovitch, 2008
Exclusive jurisdiction clauses are a frequently used tool in transnational contracts. The parties agree on a forum that would hear any potential dispute. This should ensure certainty and predictability for all parties. However, the complexity of the New Zealand rules and the jurisdictional discretion of the courts lead to often unpredictable results when exclusive jurisdiction clauses are encountered. The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements aims to address such problems with clear rules that promote certainty in commercial dealings and validate party autonomy. Even though the Convention is not free from criticism, the authors conclude that New Zealand should nonetheless adopt it.
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.
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.
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.
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.