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.
Elsabe Schoeman, 2007
This comment on Harding v Wealands  UKHL 32 addresses two issues in transnational tort litigation: (1) the application of an exception to a general tort choice of law rule, and (2) the role of the substance-procedure dichotomy. The author submits that the substance-procedure distinction is being manipulated to achieve the desired result, while the focus should be on the identification of the appropriate lex causae.
Elsabe Schoeman, 2010
The article examines the approach adopted in Rome II towards the substance-procedure distinction and signposts its potential significance for contemporary conflicts theory from an Anglo-Common Law perspective. The Rome II approach is regarded to be generally different from the one found under the common law. This is evident from a far broader category of matters assigned to the applicable law and a corresponding narrower category of matters governed by the lex fori. The author urges Anglo-Common Law jurisdictions to pay closer attention to Rome II and use it to re-evaluate their own positions in regard to the distinction between substance and procedure.