RJ Paterson, 1992
The author reviews significant Conflict of Laws cases from 1990 and 1992. The review focuses on the existence of jurisdiction, submission to jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction, as well as the relevance and application of forum non conveniens with reference to protest to jurisdiction, jurisdiction clauses, lis alibi pendens, service within New Zealand, and summary judgment proceedings, as well as family law proceedings and international child abduction cases. The author also covers the enforcement of foreign judgments at common law, as well as by statute.
Graeme W Austin, 2000
This article addresses the territoriality of copyright laws in the context of jurisdiction and choice of law. The traditional obstacles to the justiciability of foreign copyright claims in New Zealand, namely the local action jurisdiction rule in regard to foreign immovables and the double actionability tort choice of law rule, are considered in the light of recent developments in the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK. The author concludes that flexibility introduced by Peace v Ove Arup  1 All ER 769 (CA) may pave the way for New Zealand courts to assume jurisdiction in foreign copyright infringement disputes.
Campbell McLachlan, 2006
This article examines the challenges posed by the internet for classic conflicts theory and method in regard to cross-border communications with specific reference to defamation, privacy and copyright. A detailed comparative survey refers extensively to law reform initiatives and jurisprudential developments in a number of Anglo-Commonwealth countries, as well as Europe. The author explores the dynamics of the interplay between jurisdiction and choice of law and its effect on the traditional principle of territoriality within the context of cross-border communications disputes.
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.