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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Protest to jurisdiction"

"After The Spiliada – Forum Non Conveniens in New Zealand and Australia"

Scott Gallacher, 1996

This article analyses the disparate development of forum non conveniens in New Zealand and Australia. The author discusses potential differences in result, depending on whether the "more appropriate forum" test, adopted in New Zealand, or the "clearly inappropriate forum" test, adopted in Australia, is applied.

^ Top of page

"Conflict of Laws"

RJ Paterson, 1992

The author reviews significant Conflict of Laws cases from 1990 and 1992. The review focuses on the existence of jurisdiction, submission to jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction, as well as the relevance and application of forum non conveniens with reference to protest to jurisdiction, jurisdiction clauses, lis alibi pendens, service within New Zealand, and summary judgment proceedings, as well as family law proceedings and international child abduction cases. The author also covers the enforcement of foreign judgments at common law, as well as by statute.

^ Top of page

"Jurisdiction in Trans-National Cases"

Paul Myburgh and Elsabe Schoeman, 2004

This article presents an analysis of the interpretation and application of the good arguable case on the merits test within the context of RR 219 and R 220 by New Zealand courts. Considering the differences between the New Zealand and English statutory jurisdictional dispensations, the authors criticise the New Zealand courts’ adoption of English authority in this context. The article also questions the wisdom of the separate leave regimes in RR 219 (without leave) and 220 (with leave) and calls for a redrafting of the rules.

^ Top of page

"Rule 219: The ‘Good Arguable Case’ Requirement"

Andrew Beck, 2002

The author criticises the adoption of the "good arguable case on the merits" test in respect of R 219 by New Zealand courts, as a result of erroneous reliance on English case law authority. Instead of facilitating the service of proceedings on foreign defendants this test, as well as the fact that the plaintiff carries the burden of proof, completely defeats the policy underlying service abroad without the leave of the court.

^ Top of page

"Service Abroad in Enforcement Proceedings"

Elsabe Schoeman, 2007

In Commerce Commission v Koppers Arch Wood Protection (NZ) Ltd [2007] 2 NZLR 805 jurisdiction in respect of offences committed by foreign defendants in terms of the Commerce Act 1986 was founded on R219(h), which allows for service abroad without leave of the Court. In a discussion of the case, the author comments on the application of the “good arguable case on the merits” test within the context of R219. The author also argues that statutory offences present unique challenges in terms of jurisdiction and enforcement and should rather be dealt with under R220, in terms of which the Court can exercise its discretion to grant leave after having considered all relevant factors.

^ Top of page

"Putting Plaintiffs Through Their Paces"

Andrew Beck, 1998

The author criticises the interpretation of the Court of Appeal decision in Kuwait Asia Bank EC v National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd [1989] 2 NZLR 50 by the Privy Council ([1990] 3 NZLR 513), which has led to the importation of the good arguable case on the merits as part of a two stage inquiry to establish jurisdiction under R 219. Instead, the good arguable case should only be invoked where there is a genuine dispute as to jurisdictional facts.

^ Top of page

"Interim relief in support of foreign arbitrations and judicial proceedings"

Jack Wass, 2017

The author considers the High Court's powers to grant interim protective relief in aid of substantive proceedings, and argues that the Court has been wrong to hold that it may not consider such applications before it has determined a respondent's protest to jurisdiction.