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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Lex loci delicti commissi"

"Asbestos, Australia and ACC"

Elsabe Schoeman and Rosemary Tobin, 2005

This contribution examines the implications of the New Zealand Accident Compensation Scheme for asbestos-related trans-Tasman disputes. The authors focus on the significance of establishing the place of the tort in these cases of negligent omission (failure to warn) in order to determine the lex loci delicti commissi. Jurisdictional issues, such as forum non conveniens, are also considered briefly.

^ 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

“Conflict of Laws International Torts Cases: The Need for Reform on Both Sides of the Tasman”

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.

^ Top of page

"Copyright Infringement in New Zealand Law"

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 [1999] 1 All ER 769 (CA) may pave the way for New Zealand courts to assume jurisdiction in foreign copyright infringement disputes.

^ Top of page

"Horse and Buggy on the Electronic Highway: Transnational Internet Defamation in the High Court of Australia"

Paul Myburgh and Rosemary Tobin, 2003

This article presents a critical analysis of the decision in Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 194 ALR 433, [2002] HCA 56. The authors focus on the implications of the common law multiple publication rule and problems in locating the place of the tort for purposes of jurisdiction and choice of law in transnational internet defamation. Disappointment is expressed at the unwillingness of the majority to engage with and reformulate traditional defamation law principles in recognition of the revolutionary nature of internet communications.