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

Articles for the keyword(s) "Tort: Lex fori"

"Double Actionability and the Choice of Law"

Nicky Richardson, 2002

The double actionability rule is the New Zealand tort choice of law rule. This article explains what the “double actionability” requirements are, and how they have been applied by the House of Lords and the Privy Council. The author spends considerable time discussing the House of Lords decision in Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company, pointing out that this case raises more problems than it solves. The author concludes that the double actionability rule did not produce any unjust results prior to the Kuwait case and should therefore be retained as the New Zealand conflict rule.

^ Top of page

“Loss Distribution Issues in Multinational Tort Claims: Giving Substance to Substance”

Anthony Gray, 2008

The distinction between substance and procedure is fundamental to private international law. However, in recent years, most Commonwealth courts have made their own statements regarding this dichotomy, and there seems to be no agreement on the demarcation between substance and procedure. Based on a survey of decisions in Australia, England, Canada and South Africa, as well as an analysis of the underlying rationale for the distinction, the author argues in favour of the adoption of a narrow view of procedure in regard to the assessment of damages.

^ Top of page

“Conflict of Laws International Torts Cases: The Need for Reform on Both Sides of the Tasman”

Anthony Gray, 2006

The author argues that the double actionability rule, which has survived in New Zealand, is no longer best suited for choice of law in tort. Instead, the lex loci delicti should be the preferred rule supplemented by a flexible exception. The author undertakes an in-depth analysis of the North American jurisprudence in this area, focusing on the value of the distinction between conduct regulation and loss distribution. He concludes that Australia and New Zealand should adopt similar choice of law rules for torts.

^ Top of page

“Third (Anglo-Common Law) Countries and Rome II: Dilemma or Deliverance”

Elsabe Schoeman, 2011

The Rome II Regulation deals with choice of law in tort. The article examines the value of this Regulation vis-à-vis third (non-EU Anglo-Common law) countries, analysing the unique EU environment and the continuous movement towards uniformity and certainty. The author discusses the general choice of law regime laid down in Article 4 of the Regulation and applies it to two famous Anglo-Common law cases: Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd and Harding v Wealands, concluding that these cases would probably have been decided differently under Rome II. The article concludes that Rome II may indeed have comparative value for these third countries and that its importance should not be underestimated.

^ Top of page

"New Zealand's Choice of Law Rules Relating to Tort"

Maria Hook, 2018

This article examines the changes brought about by the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Act 2017 and identifies areas for future development.