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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Not justifiable"

"New Zealand Conflict of Laws – A Bird’s Eye View"

FM Auburn and PRH Webb, 1977

In this section of an overview of New Zealand Conflict of Laws, the impact of the Accident Compensation Scheme on transnational tort litigation is considered. The authors discuss the interpretation and application of the double actionability rule for tort within the context of the bar on proceedings for damages in terms of the Accident Compensation Act 1972, with specific reference to the problem of foreigners’ loss of earnings.

^ Top of page

"New Zealand Accident Compensation and the Foreign Plaintiff: Some Conflict of Laws Problems"

Giora Shapira, 1980

The author looks at the implications of the New Zealand Accident Compensation Scheme for foreign plaintiffs, and the inadequacy of recovery, within the context of the double actionability rule for tort. The challenge for tort choice of law is to secure a proper remedy for the foreign plaintiff, while protecting local defendants against tort liability. Since the double actionability rule cannot achieve this, the author explores the “proper law of the tort” doctrine as applied in US case law concerning workmen’s compensation statutes.

^ Top of page

"New Zealand Conflict of Laws – A Bird’s Eye View"

FM Auburn and PRH Webb, 1978

In this section of an overview of New Zealand Conflict of Laws, the impact of the Accident Compensation Scheme on transnational tort litigation is considered. The authors discuss the interpretation and application of the double actionability rule for tort within the context of the bar on proceedings for damages in terms of the Accident Compensation Act 1972, with specific reference to the problem of foreigners’ loss of earnings.

^ Top of page

"Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Tort"

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 [1968] 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.