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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Movable property"

"New Zealand Conflict of Laws – A Bird’s Eye View"

FM Auburn and PRH Webb, 1977

In an overview of New Zealand Conflict of Laws, the authors draw attention to the fact that a mortgagee’s interest in land is classified as movable in New Zealand and not immovable (as in England).

^ Top of page

"Voth in the Family Court: Forum Conveniens in Property and Custody Litigation"

PE Nygh, 1993

The author examines the effect of Voth v Manildra Flower Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 on international litigation in the Family Court of Australia. One of the cases discussed is the Trans-Tasman litigation in Gilmore, where proceedings were commenced in Australia and New Zealand. The article focuses on the consequences of disparate forum conveniens/forum non conveniens doctrines, coupled with different matrimonial property regimes, in Australia and New Zealand.

^ Top of page

"Birch v Birch: Conflicts of Laws Principles"

Simon Porter, 2002

This is an analysis of Birch v Birch [2001] 3 NZLR 413; [2001] NZFLR 563, which concerned the division of the proceeds of a (formerly) foreign immovable asset in terms of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 and more specifically the dates at which to classify, value and establish jurisdiction over such property. Although the Family Court and the High Court reached the same result, the author does not find the different approaches and reasoning adopted by the different judges entirely convincing.

^ Top of page

"Lorentzen v Lydden: Dead and Buried?"

Elsabe Schoeman, 2004

In Peer International Corp v Termidor Music Publishers Ltd [2004] 2 WLR 849 the English Court of Appeal applied the lex situs rule to deny extraterritorial effect to a foreign governmental act (Cuban Law 860) in regard to (English-owned) copyright. Although this decision has effectively overruled Lorentzen v Lydden & Co Ltd [1942] 2 KB 202, the author points out that reference was made to the nature of the decree (confiscatory or not), which should not have been a relevant consideration on the facts of the case.

^ Top of page

"Matrimonial Property and the Conflict of Laws"

Campbell McLachlan, 1986

The author examines provisions in the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 applicable to conflicts issues upon dissolution of marriage through separation with specific reference to: the international diversity of matrimonial property regimes; the scope of the Act in relation to movable and foreign immovable property; the uncertainty pervading common law conflict rules and their potential applicability to property falling outside the scope of the Act; and ante-nuptial agreements. The article highlights the tension between domestic policies and foreign law in transnational matrimonial property disputes.

^ Top of page

"Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976: A Choice of Law Rule?"

CF Forsyth, 1976

The author highlights a number of issues in regard to s 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 as a “choice of law” rule, such as: the complexity of the section in respect of its limits of application, outside of which the common law rules apply, as well as the unqualified adoption and extension of the principle of mutability to all movable property. Problems surrounding express choice of law clauses in marriage settlements and alternatives to “matrimonial domicile” as a connecting factor are also addressed.

^ Top of page

"New Zealand Conflict of Laws – A Bird’s Eye View"

FM Auburn and PRH Webb, 1978

In an overview of New Zealand Conflict of Laws, the authors draw attention to the fact that a mortgagee’s interest in land is classified as movable in New Zealand and not immovable (as in England).