Paul Myburgh and Linda Patullo, 2003
In Mehta v Elliot (Labour Inspector) AEC 34/02, AC 2A/03, 9 July 2003 (Judge Colgan), the judge denied extra-territorial scope to protective provisions in the Wage Protection Act 1983 in circumstances where a premium had been paid overseas. The authors analyse the decision, concluding that the judge had arguably (in a difficult, borderline case) overemphasised the general presumption against extra-territoriality in the absence of a clear indication of its territorial reach. They propose that the legislature review the territorial scope of existing statutes and spell out the territorial reach of propsed statutory provisions.
Maria Hook, 2017
This article explores the problems associated with an exclusive focus by courts on statutory interpretation when determining whether a statute applies to foreign facts, overlooking the application of conflict of laws principles. This focus is referred to as “statutism.” In particular, the author focuses on how statutism risks distortion of established notions of subject-matter jurisdiction in two ways. First, statutism can lead courts to overlook the choice of law process. Courts may conclude that if the relevant statute does not apply they must lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute, overlooking the possibility that they can adjudicate the dispute according to foreign law. Second, statutism, by deciding the question of subject-matter jurisdiction according to statutory interpretation, prevents a proper analysis of whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction according to the external conflict of laws framework.
Maria Hook and Jack Wass, 2017
The authors analyse and critique the Court of Appeal's decision in New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown  NZCA 525,  2 NZLR 93. The issue in this case was whether New Zealand-based pilots could seek relief under the Employment Relations Act 2000 in relation to impending dismissal by their Hong Kong-based employer. The employment contracts were expressly governed by the law of Hong Kong.