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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Service abroad"

"Jurisdiction, the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens, and Choice of Law in Conflict of Laws"

BD Inglis, 1965

With reference to the English law of jurisdiction, the author draws a clear distinction between forum conveniens as a prerequisite for leave to serve abroad (and the establishment of jurisdiction) and forum conveniens as a motion to strike out or stay an action after the defendant has been served within the jurisdiction, the latter having developed within the context of abuse of process proceedings. The author also explores the relationship between jurisdiction and choice of law, as well as the onus of proof in forum conveniens cases.

^ Top of page

"Conflict of Laws: Lovett v Crown Worldwide (NZ) Ltd"

Tony Angelo, 2004

The author notes briefly that, in the light of modern transport facilities and video links, the Court did not regard the location of a witness in Australia as a very significant factor when determining the appropriateness of the forum

^ Top of page

"Global Disputes – Jurisdiction, Interim Relief and Enforcement of Judgments"

David Goddard, 1999

This contribution contains extracts from a paper prepared by David Goddard for the NZLS triennial conference. The focus is on cross-border disputes, especially trans-Tasman disputes, and the problems involved in the enforcement of interim orders and final judgments. The inadequacy of legislation in this area is highlighted and accession to and participation in relevant international conventions are recommended.

^ Top of page

“Service Abroad without Leave: Taking Seaconsar Seriously’’

Elsabe Schoeman, 2010

The New Zealand High Court Rules in respect of service abroad without leave (r 6.27) now incorporate the “serious issue to be tried on the merits” test. This article examines the important difference between the “good arguable case” and “serious issue to be tried on the merits” tests using Lord Goff’s authoritative statements in Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran. The author urges the Courts to embrace Lord Goff’s clarification as an opportunity to provide certainty and accuracy in relation to the interpretation and application of the “serious issue to be tried on the merits” test.