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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Submission "

"Conflict of Laws"

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.

^ 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.

^ Top of page

"Forum Non Conveniens in New Zealand"

RJ Paterson, 1989

This article presents an in-depth account of the origin and development of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in England and its subsequent reception in New Zealand. The author analyses the interpretation and application of forum non conveniens in New Zealand case law with reference to service both within and out of New Zealand. Policy considerations, crucial to the exercise of the courts’ discretion in forum non conveniens matters, are discussed and evaluated in detail. The author concludes with a critical evaluation of the allocation and extent of the burden of proof in forum non conveniens cases and proposes a correction to the plaintiff-biased way in which the doctrine has been applied in New Zealand.