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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Public policy exclusion"

"Double Actionability and the Choice of Law"

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.

^ 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

"Tortious Liability and Conflicts"

Nicky Richardson, 2003

This case note on Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co [2002] 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.

^ Top of page

"Judgments Extension under CER"

Reid Mortensen, 1999

This article discusses the Closer Economic Relations (CER) Trade Agreement entered into between New Zealand and Australia in 1983 with specific reference to the removal of legal impediments to trade. The author criticises the CER scheme as it does little to improve the efficiency in respect of trans-Tasman judgment extensions. An in-depth analysis follows into alternative mechanisms available for judgment enforcement, with specific reference to the European and Australian models. The author concludes with proposals for the adoption of a “direct jurisdiction” model for the CER scheme.

^ Top of page

"The Hague and the Ditch: The Trans-Tasman Judicial Area and the Choice of Court Convention"

Reid Mortensen, 2009

Following an analysis of the history and current context of the proposed Trans-Tasman regime (within the CER framework), this article explores the comparative value of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements for Australia and New Zealand. Although the Convention and the proposed Trans-Tasman regime are profoundly different, the author concludes that the adoption of the Convention would provide an opportunity for both countries to increase certainty in international trade and commercial relationships. More specifically, reference to the Convention would address the risk of lis pendens and incompatible judgments in the proposed Trans-Tasman regime.

^ Top of page

"Enforcement of Foreign Judgments"

Laurette Barnard, 1996

This is a review of the decision in Bolton v Marine Services Ltd CA251/93 5 February 1996, in terms of which a foreign irregular judgment, which had not been set aside in the foreign court because the judgment debtor was in contempt, could be enforced in New Zealand. The author criticises the Court’s interpretation of the public policy exclusion as it applies to the enforcement of foreign judgments, as well as the Court’s failure to appreciate the penal nature (and unenforceability) of the judgment debt.