BD Inglis, 1964
The author explores the Anglo-Common Law distinction between forum conveniens, as a prerequisite to assuming jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens, as a defence plea. An analysis of relevant case law illustrates that, in both forum conveniens and forum non conveniens scenarios, the same factors are considered and therefore forum conveniens constitutes the true basis of jurisdiction.
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.
RJ Paterson, 1989
The author reviews significant Conflict of Laws cases from 1988 and 1989. The review focuses on the reception of the doctrine of forum non conveniens into New Zealand law and explores the significance and implications of this doctrine within the context of the existence and exercise of jurisdiction in commercial, as well as matrimonial and international child abduction cases.
Craig Brown, 1976
The author examines the confusion caused by the double-limbed tort conflict rule (Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1) in regard to jurisdiction and choice of law, as well as the significance of the "proper law of the tort" exception (Boys v Chaplin  2 QB 1). While emphasising the distinction between jurisdiction and choice of law, the author points to the interaction between jurisdiction and choice of law in order to find the appropriate forum as well as the appropriate lex causae for cross-border tort disputes. The jurisdictional doctrine of forum conveniens (where leave to serve abroad is required) and the "proper law of the tort" for choice of law purposes may provide the required degree of flexibility in tort choice of law.
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.
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.
Elsabe Schoeman, 2007
In Commerce Commission v Koppers Arch Wood Protection (NZ) Ltd  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.
CN Irvine, 1964
In a note on Adastra Aviation Ltd v Airports (NZ) Ltd and Another  NZLR 393, the author criticises the mode of service specified in that case in regard to foreign defendants. The author analyses the meaning of the phrase, “in lieu of service of the writ of summons”, contained in R 51A of the Code of Civil Procedure, with reference to relevant case authority.
FM Auburn, 1970
The author analyses RR 48 and 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure (service abroad with leave), with specific reference to claims in tort and contract, against the background of the corresponding English rules. This detailed analysis of the factors relevant to the discretion to grant leave, draws extensively on relevant English case law, as well as case law from other comparable jurisdictions.
Clive Elliot, 1998
With reference to American case law, the author discusses jurisdictional issues relating to internet activity. Consideration is given to the potential implications of the application of New Zealand rules of jurisdiction within this context.
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.