Paul Myburgh, 2005
In a comment on Tisand (Pty) Ltd v The Owners of the Ship MV Cape Moreton (ex Freya)  FCAFC 68, 29 April 2005, the author analyses the approach of the Court to the issue of foreign vessel ownership within the context of admiralty jurisdiction. The Court characterised the issue as relating to the transfer of property rights and subject to the lex situs, rather than a jurisdictional matter subject to the lex fori. The author supports the Court’s rejection of the lex fori approach and welcomes the Court’s sophisticated analysis of the conflicts issues involved.
Giora Shapira, 1980
The author looks at the implications of the New Zealand Accident Compensation Scheme for foreign plaintiffs, and the inadequacy of recovery, within the context of the double actionability rule for tort. The challenge for tort choice of law is to secure a proper remedy for the foreign plaintiff, while protecting local defendants against tort liability. Since the double actionability rule cannot achieve this, the author explores the “proper law of the tort” doctrine as applied in US case law concerning workmen’s compensation statutes.
Nicky Richardson, 2002
The double actionability rule is the New Zealand tort choice of law rule. This article explains what the “double actionability” requirements are, and how they have been applied by the House of Lords and the Privy Council. The author spends considerable time discussing the House of Lords decision in Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company, pointing out that this case raises more problems than it solves. The author concludes that the double actionability rule did not produce any unjust results prior to the Kuwait case and should therefore be retained as the New Zealand conflict rule.
Anthony Gray, 2006
The author argues that the double actionability rule, which has survived in New Zealand, is no longer best suited for choice of law in tort. Instead, the lex loci delicti should be the preferred rule supplemented by a flexible exception. The author undertakes an in-depth analysis of the North American jurisprudence in this area, focusing on the value of the distinction between conduct regulation and loss distribution. He concludes that Australia and New Zealand should adopt similar choice of law rules for torts.
Paul Myburgh, 2010
This article discusses the different treatment of ship suppliers’ claims in Anglo-Common Law jurisdictions. The United States, until recently, was the only jurisdiction that granted a maritime lien status to such claims. Canada, to avoid discrepancies with the United States, which could lead to forum shopping, has recently introduced a statutory maritime lien for certain ship suppliers’ claims. The author urges other Anglo-Common Law jurisdictions, including New Zealand, to reconsider their position in light of such developments.
Elsabe Schoeman, 2010
The article examines the approach adopted in Rome II towards the substance-procedure distinction and signposts its potential significance for contemporary conflicts theory from an Anglo-Common Law perspective. The Rome II approach is regarded to be generally different from the one found under the common law. This is evident from a far broader category of matters assigned to the applicable law and a corresponding narrower category of matters governed by the lex fori. The author urges Anglo-Common Law jurisdictions to pay closer attention to Rome II and use it to re-evaluate their own positions in regard to the distinction between substance and procedure.
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.
Nicky Richardson, 2003
This case note on Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co  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.
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  1 All ER 769 (CA) may pave the way for New Zealand courts to assume jurisdiction in foreign copyright infringement disputes.
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.
Maria Hook, 2017
This article explores the problems associated with an exclusive focus by courts on statutory interpretation when determining whether a statute applies to foreign facts, overlooking the application of conflict of laws principles. This focus is referred to as “statutism.” In particular, the author focuses on how statutism risks distortion of established notions of subject-matter jurisdiction in two ways. First, statutism can lead courts to overlook the choice of law process. Courts may conclude that if the relevant statute does not apply they must lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute, overlooking the possibility that they can adjudicate the dispute according to foreign law. Second, statutism, by deciding the question of subject-matter jurisdiction according to statutory interpretation, prevents a proper analysis of whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction according to the external conflict of laws framework.