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.
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.