Laurette Barnard, 1996
This article presents a detailed analysis of the way in which New Zealand courts determine the objective proper law of a contract in the absence of a choice by the parties. With reference to case law, the author argues that the current practice of determining such proper law on the basis of the “closest and most real connection” test does not translate into certainty and predictability and does not serve the goals of commercial convenience and business efficacy. The author proposes the development of a set of coherent presumptions, or rules subject to flexible exceptions, for each kind of contract.
EH Flitton and PRH Webb, 1968
The authors note that, at the time, there had not been a single conflict of laws torts case in any of the higher courts in New Zealand. Against this background, they analyse the House of Lords decision in Boys v Chaplin  1 All ER 283, pointing to the diversity of thinking that makes this case difficult to apply. The focus is on the general rule of double actionability and the proper law exception, as interpreted in relevant cases leading up to Boys v Chaplin.