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.
"Damages and Territorial Jurisdiction: Judicial Interpretation of Rule 219(a) and the Case for Reform"
Giora Shapira, 2006
The author critically examines New Zealand case law on R 219(a) with specific reference to: (1) the judicial creation of a “good arguable case on the merits” test, and (2) the broad interpretation of “damages” within the context of trans-national tort actions. The author advocates law reform through the abolition of the “good arguable case” requirement and a reformulation of R 219(a), based on a comparison with other jurisdictions, to bring it in line with modern international trends.