Private International Law (litigating in the trans-Tasman context and beyond)

104 Pages·2012·75.196 MB·English

by  David Goddard, Camball McLachlan

NZLS CLE Ltd
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY
NZLS EST 1869
I ,
' I '
I -- - - - , I
..
.. "Cl
~
.ID. .<-.·
.. Ill
.1.11 1-11
:I
.-'4 . ..:.I.
111 ID
3 ;
Ill ..
0
:I
.n. ::i
O Ill
:I ,-
!ID ~Ill
Ill'
:CI .-:
.,.ca·
ID 111
'< ..
;0. ~-·
:I
>
C:
Cl
C:
(II PRESENTERS David Goddard QC
-4
..
N Prof Campbell McLachlan QC
0
www. lawyersed ucation .co. nz
NZLS CLE Ltd
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY
SEMINAR
Private International Law - litigating in the trans-Tasman
context and beyond
David Goddard QC and Prof Campbell McLachlan QC
•
Correction
Page 46: please note numbering for s 24(2) has been corrected from:
(2) ... (i), (ii) ... to that below
(2) In detem1ining whether an Australian court is the more appropriate court to detennine
the matters in issue between the parties to the proceeding, the New Zealand court
must not take into account the fact that the proceeding was commenced in New
Zealand, but must take into account the following matters:
(a) the places of residence of the parties or, ifa party is 1101 an individual, its
principal place of business:
(b) the places of residence of the witnesses likely lo be called in the
proceeding:
(c) the place where the subject mailer of the proceeding is situated:
(d) any agreement between the parties about the court or place in which
those mailers should be determined or the proceeding should be
inslituled (other than an exclusive choice of court agreement lo which
section 25( I) applies):
(e) the law that it would be most appropriate lo apply in the proceeding:
(f) whether a related or similar proceeding has been commenced against the
defendant or another person in a court in Australia:
(g) the financial circumstances of the parties, so far as the New Zealand
court is aware of them:
(h) any other mailers that the New Zealand court considers relevant.
PRESENTERS
David Goddard QC, Wellington
David has a wide ranging commercial litigation and law reform practice in New Zealand
and overseas. He has practised as a barrister since 1999, and was appointed Queens
Counsel in May 2003. Before David went to the bar he was a partner at Chapman Tripp
from 1991 to 1998. From 2001 to 2003 David held a part-time appointment as a Special
Counsel - International with the New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development,
advising on cross-border legal coordination.
David has represented New Zealand in bilateral and multilateral negotiations on a wide
range of cross-border issues. He was a member of the Trans-Tasman Working Group
that developed the new trans-Tasman service of proceedings and enforcement of
judgments regime that is provided for in the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010.
David publishes and speaks extensively in his specialist areas. He is the author of the
"Conflict of Laws: Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments" title of the Laws of New
Zealand. David has presented NZLS seminars on company and commercial law, the law
of obligations, and drafting better court documents. He presented the original 1991
seminar Conflicts of Law and (with Helen McQueen) the 2001 seminar Private
International Law in New Zealand.
Prof Campbell Mclachlan QC, Wellington
Campbell (LL B (Hons) (Well), Ph D (Land), Dip (c l) (Hag Acad Int'! Law)) is
Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington, teaching public and private
international law and international arbitration, and Barrister (NZ, call 1984, Queen's
Counsel 2007), with chambers in New Zealand (Bankside Chambers, Auckland),
Singapore (Maxwell Chambers) and London (Essex Court Chambers). He advises and
appears in the New Zealand courts in particular on international law issues.
He is one of the Specialist Editors of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws
(14th edn 2006; 15th edn forthcoming 2013). His book (with Matthew Weiniger and
Laurence Shore) International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (OUP,
2007) was the first modern treatise on investment treaty law as applied by arbitral
tribunals, and won the J F Northey Book Prize in 2008. His lectures at The Hague
Academy of International Law, on Lis Pendens in International Litigation, which deal
with international conflicts of jurisdiction, were published in 2009.
A New Zealander, Campbell spent 15 years practising in the field of international
litigation in London as a partner in the firm of Herbert Smith. He took up his present
position in New Zealand in 2003. Campbell is a member of the ICSID Panel of
Arbitrators and has been appointed as president or member of a number of arbitral
tribunals. Campbell chaired the Cross-border Issues Sub-Committee of the High Court
Rules Revision Committee, preparing the revised rules on jurisdiction that are now
found in the High Court Rules 2009.
The statements and conclusions contained in this booklet are those of the author(s) only and not those of the
New Zealand Law Society. This booklet has been prepared for the purpose of a Continuing Legal Education
course. It is not intended to be a comprehensive statement of the law or practice, and should not be relied
upon as such. If advice on the law is required, it should be sought on aformal, professional basis.
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 WHAT IS "PR.JV AT E INTERNATIONAL LAW"? ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 THE SOURCES OF NEW ZEALAND PR.JV ATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ..................................................... 3
1.3 THE TTPA-AN OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 4
1.4 THE SCOPE OF THIS BOOKLET ............................................................................................................ 6
2. WHY BOTHER WITH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW? .................................................... 9
3. HOW COURTS DEAL WITH FOREIGN LAW .......................................................................... 11
3.1 WHY DO NEW ZEALAND COURTS REFER TO FOREIGN LA w? ............................................................ 11
3.2 THE ASCERTAINMENT OF FOREIGN LAW .......................................................................................... 11
3.3 SECTION 144 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2006 ...................................................................................... 12
3.4 ADMISSIBILITY OF AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC DOCUMENTS .................................................................... 14
4. JURISDICTION AND FORUM CONVENIENS - WHICH COURT WILL A DISPUTE BE
HEARD IN? ....................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 THE NATURE OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 15
4.2 ACTING FOR A PLAINTIFF WHO WISHES TO SUE A DEFENDANT NOT RESIDENT IN NEW ZEALAND .... 16
(a) Service in New Zealand ............................................................................................................ 16
(b) Service under an agreement ..................................................................................................... 17
(c) Service on an attorney or agent ................................................................................................ 18
(d) Service in Australia under the TTPA ........................................................................................ 19
(e) Personal service out of the jurisdiction (non-TTPA claims) ..................................................... 20
(I) Service out of the jurisdiction without leave - High Court Rule 6.27. ...................................... 20
(g) Service out of the jurisdiction with leave - High Court Rule 6.28 ............................................ 23
(h) Substituted service .................................................................................................................... 26
(i) Notice ofp roceeding for service under High Court Rules 6.27 or 6.28 ................................... 27
0) Serving the documents .............................................................................................................. 28
(k) The defendant's response .......................................................................................................... 29
(1) Entry ofj udgment by default ..................................................................................................... 29
(m) Summary judgment applications ............................................................................................... 31
(n) Disputes Tribunal proceedings ................................................................................................. 32
(o) Persons who cannot be sued in New Zealand. .......................................................................... 33
(p) The importance oft hinking about enforcement against foreign defendants ............................. 35
4.3. ACTING FOR A FOREJGN DEFENDANT UPON WHOM NEW ZEALAND PROCEEDINGS HA VE BEEN SERVED
OUTSIDE NEW ZEALAND ................................................................................................................. 36
(a) Option one - do nothing ........................................................................................................... 36
(b) Option two - object to New Zealand jurisdiction ..................................................................... 38
(c) Option three- apply for a stay on the grounds off orum non conveniens ................................ 43
(d ) Option four - defend the action in the normal way .................................................................. 44
Burden ofp roof .................................................................................................................................. 44
4.4 ACTING FOR A DEFENDANT VALLDLY SERVED IN NEW ZEALAND .................................................... 45
4.5 ACTING FOR A DEFENDANT SERVED IN AUSTRALIA UNDER THE TTPA .......................................... .46
4.6 FACTORS RELEVANT TO WHETHER NEW ZEALAND IS THE APPROPRIATE FORUM ............................ 48
4.7 FORUM CLAUSES ............................................................................................................................. 51
(a) Submission to New Zealand jurisdiction ................................................................................... 5 l
(b) Submission to a foreign jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 52
(c) Clauses relating to forum conveniens ....................................................................................... 53
4.8 ACTING FOR A NEW ZEALAND DEFENDANT UPON WHOM PROCEEDINGS IN A FOREIGN COURT HAVE
BEEN SERVED .................................................................................................................................. 53
(a) Obtaining advice inforeignjurisdiction ................................................................................... 53
(b) Injunctions to restrain foreign legal proceedings ..................................................................... 54
Cover and text stocks used in this publication are from Forestry Stewardship Counc~l certifie~
5. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS ......................................................................... 57
mills manufactured under the environmentally responsible paper manufactured envuonmenta
' t ISO 14001 using pulp from well managed forests and other controlled 5.1 THE EFFECT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN NEW ZEALAND ................................................................. 57
management sys em ,
5.2 ENFORCEMENT OF FOREJGN JUDGMENTS AT COMMON LAW ............................................................ 58
sources.
(a) Which foreign judgments are enforceable at common law in New Zealand? ........................... 58 (c) Presumptions .......................................................................................................................... 121
(b) Jurisdiction ofa foreign court .................................................................................................. 5 8 (d) Parties to the action ................................................................................................................ 121
(c) Judgment for a debt, or definite sum ofm oney ......................................................................... 59 (e) Set-off and counterclaim ......................................................................................................... 121
(d ) Judgment not in respect of taxes, fines or penalty .................................................................... 60 (f) Types of remedy ...................................................................................................................... 121
(e) Judgment must be final and conclusive ..................................................................................... 61 (g) Property Law Act 2007 ........................................................................................................... 122
(f) Conclusiveness off oreign judgment in New Zealand ............................................................... 61 (h) Priorities ................................................................................................................................. 122
(g) First defence: judgment obtained by fraud ............................................................................... 6 l 8.3 CHARACTERJSATION OF ISSUES, AND CONNECTING FACTORS ........................................................ 122
(h) Second defence: enforcement contrary to public policy ........................................................... 64 (a) Characterisation ..................................................................................................................... 123
(i} Third defence: breach ofn atural justice ................................................................................... 65 (b) Connectingfactors .................................................................................................................. 123
0) Recognition off oreign judgments ............................................................................................. 66 8.4 EXCLUSION OF FOREIGN LAW ........................................................................................................ 124
(k) Cause ofa ction does not merge in foreign judgment ................................................................ 67 (a) Foreign public law .................................................................................................................. 125
(l) Procedure for enforcement ....................................................................................................... 67 (b) Public Policy. .......................................................................................................................... 126
(m) Limitation periodf or action on a foreign judgment .................................................................. 68 8.5 APPLYfNG NEW ZEALAND STATUTES TO CASES WITH FOREIGN ELEMENTS ................................... 126
(n) Judgment in foreign currency ................................................................................................... 69 (a) Territorially limited statutes ................................................................................................... 127
5.3 ENFORCEMENT UNDER STATUTE: THE RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ACT 1934 ...... 69 (b) internationally mandatory rules (overriding statutes) ............................................................ 127
(a) The legislation ........................................................................................................................... 69 (c) Codified choice ofl aw rules ................................................................................................... 128
(b) Which judgments can be registered under Part I oft he 1934 Act? ........................................... 70 (d) Statutes silent as to territorial application ............................................................................. 128
(c) Part IA - Orders ofF ederal Court ofA ustralia under Trade Practices Act J 974 (Cth) .......... 73 8.6 RENVOI ......................................................................................................................................... 129
(d) Applications for registration ..................................................................................................... 74
9. CONTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 131
(e) Effect of registration ................................................................................................................. 76
(f) Applications to set registration aside ........................................................................................ 77
9.1 THE PROPER LAW OF A CONTRACT ................................................................................................ 131
(g) Recognition a/judgments under the 1934 Act .......................................................................... 84 (a) What is the "proper law"? ..................................................................................................... 131
5.4 ENFORCEMENT OF AUSTRALIAN JUDGMENTS UNDER THE TTPA .................................................... 84 (b) Identifying the proper law ofa contract ................................................................................. 131
5.5 STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT OF COMMONWEALTH JUDGMENTS TO WHICH THE 1934 ACT DOES NOT 9 .2 CHOICE OF LAW fN CONTRACT: SELECTED TOPICS ............................................................................ 134
APPLY .............................................................................................................................................. 87 (a) Capacity to contract ............................................................................................................... 134
5.6 INDIRECT ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS ......................................................................... 90 (b) Formation ofa contract .......................................................................................................... 135
6. INTERIM RELIEF ........................................................................................................................... 91 (c) Formal validity ....................................................................................................................... 136
(d) Essential validity ..................................................................................................................... 136
6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 91 (e) Who can rely on a contract? ................................................................................................... 136
6.2 INTERJM RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ASSETS OUTSIDE NEW ZEALAND .................................................... 92 (f) interpretation of the contract .................................................................................................. 136
(a) Grounds .................................................................................................................................... 92 (g) Obligations under a contract, and their performance ............................................................ 137
(b) Territorial effect ........................................................................................................................ 93 (h) Discharge of contracts ............................................................................................................ 137
6.3 lNTERJM RELIEF AGAINST PERSONS NOT RESIDENT IN NEW ZEALAND ............................................. 94 (i) Jllegality .................................................................................................................................. 137
6.4 INTERJM RELIEF fN SUPPORT OF FOREIGN SUBSTANTIVE PROCEEDINGS .............................................. 96 0) Breach of contract .................................................................................................................. 138
(a) Interim reliefg enerally in support off oreign proceedings ....................................................... 96 (k) Moratoria ................................................................................................................................ 138
(b) Interim relief in support of Trans-Tasman proceedings ........................................................... 97 9.3 VIENNA CONVENTION ON A UNIFORM LAW FOR THE SALE OF GOODS ......................................... 139
(c) Freezing orders in support off oreign proceedings ................................................................... 97 9.4 CONTRACTS MADE ONLINE ........................................................................................................... 141
(d) Real connecting link. ................................................................................................................. 98 (a) The importance ofc hoice of law clauses ................................................................................ 142
6.5 TRANSNATIONAL DISCLOSURE ORDERS ........................................................................................... 99 (b) Limits on the effect ofc hoice of law clauses ........................................................................... 142
(a) Ancillary relief against a prospective judgment debtor ............................................................ 99
10. TORTS ............................................................................................................................................. 143
(b) The position oft hird parties ...................................................................................................... 99
(c) Limiting the use that may be made of information that is disclosed ....................................... 101 10.l ACTS AND OMISSIONS OUTSIDE NEW ZEALAND ............................................................................ 143
(d ) Disclosure orders where defendant may face criminal charges ............................................. 10 l 10.2 DOES NEW ZEALAND LAW ALWAYS APPLY IN RELATION TO ACTS DONE IN NEW ZEALAND? ....... 145
7. OBTAINING EVIDENCE IN CROSS-BORDER LITIGATION .............................................. 103 10.3 WHERE IS A TORT COMMITTED? .................................................................................................... 146
10.4 ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ........................................................................................................... 147
7.1 0BTAINfNG EVIDENCE FROM OUTSIDE NEW ZEALAND FOR A NEW ZEALAND PROCEEDfNG .......... 103
11. STATUTORY CAUSES OF ACTION .......................................................................................... 149
(a) Willing witnesses ..................................................................................................................... 104
(b) Unwilling witnesses ................................................................................................................ 109 11.1 ACTION BASED ON A NEW ZEALAND STATUTE FOR A WRONG DONE OUTSIDE NEW ZEALAND ...... 149
(c) "Trans-Tasman" arrangements .............................................................................................. 109
11.2 ACTION IN NEW ZEALAND BASED ON A FOREIGN STATUTE ........................................................... 150
(d ) Provision ofd iscovery from overseas persons, for New Zealand proceedings ....................... 112
12. PROPERTY - AN OUTLINE ....................................................................................................... 153
7.2 0BTAJNING EVIDENCE WITHIN NEW ZEALAND, FOR AN OVERSEAS PROCEEDING .......................... 114
(a) Willing witnesses ..................................................................................................................... 114
12.l CLASSIFYfNG PROPERTY AS MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE ................................................................ 153
(b) Unwilling witnesses ................................................................................................................ 115 12.2 WHERE IS PROPERTY SITU A TED? ................................................................................................... 153
(c) Provision ofd iscovery from New Zealand, for overseas proceedings .................................... 116 12.3 TRANSFERS OF MOVABLES ............................................................................................................ 155
8. WHAT LAW WILL THE COURT APPLY? ............................................................................... 119 (a) Tangible movables .................................................................................................................. 155
(b) Intangible movables ................................................................................................................ 156
8.1 OUTLINE ....................................................................................................................................... 119
12.4 TRANSFERS OF IMMOVABLES ........................................................................................................ 156
8.2 THE SUBSTANCE/PROCEDURE DISTfNCTION ................................................................................... 119 12.5 JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO IMMOVABLES ................................................................................ 156
(a) Limitation statutes ................................................................................................................... 119
(b) Damages ................................................................................................................................. 120 13. DRAFTING CONTRACTS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF CROSS-BORDER ISSUES ............. 159
13.l CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSES .............................................................................................................. 159 EXAMPLE 8: SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT INVOLVING AUSTRALIAN VENDOR (WITH NZ SUB) AND
(a) The pwpose ofa choice of law clause .................................................................................... 159 NZ PURCHASER ...................................................................................................................................... 188
(b) Draft choice of law clause ...................................................................................................... 160 Governing Law ................................................................................................................................. 188
(c) Variations ............................................................................................................................... 160 Submission to Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 188
13.2 FORUM CLAUSES ........................................................................................................................... 161 Vendor's Process Agent .................................................................................................................... 189
(a) The purpose ofa forum clause ................................................................................................ 161 EXAMPLE 9: TERMS OF USE OF MSN WEB SITE AND SERVICES .............................................................. 189
(b) Draft non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses ................................................................................. 162 EXAMPLE 10: XTRA TERMS OF SERVICE FOR BUSINESS CUSTOMERS ..................................................... 190
(c) Variations on non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses .................................................................... 163 2 7. New Zealand Law Applies .......................................................................................................... 190
(d) Draft exclusive jurisdiction clauses ........................................................................................ 164
DISCUSSION PROBLEMS .................................................................................................................... 191
13.3 AGENTS FOR SERVICE .................................................................................................................... 165
(a) The purpose ofa n agent for service clause ............................................................................. 165 DISCUSSION PROBLEM l: JURISDICTION, EVIDENCE, ENFORCEMENT: TRANS-NATIONAL FRAUD ............ 191
(b) Draft agent for service clause ................................................................................................. 165 DISCUSSION PROBLEM 2: TRANSNATIONAL CONTRACTS ....................................................................... 193
(c) Variations on agent for service clauses .................................................................................. 166 DISCUSSION PROBLEM 3: DRAFTING CONTRACTS ................................................................................... 195
13.4 ARBITRATION CLAUSES ................................................................................................................. 167
(a) General issues ......................................................................................................................... 167
(b) Draft arbitration clause .......................................................................................................... 168
13.5 lNCORPORAT ING CLAUSES IN ONLINE CONTRACTS ........................................................................ 169
(a) Making incorporation ofc lauses effective .............................................................................. 169
(b) Other issues. ............................................................................................................................ 170
(c) Managing the risks ofc ontracting on line ............................................................................... 171
APPENDIX 1 - NEW ZEALAND CASES RELEVANT TO THE SCOPE OF RULE 6.27 HIGH
COURT RULES ....................................................................................................................................... 173
Rule 6.27(2)(a) .................................................................................................................................. 173
Rule 6.27(2)(b) .................................................................................................................................. l 74
Rule 6.27(2)(c) .................................................................................................................................. 175
Rule 6.27(2)(d) .................................................................................................................................. 175
Rule 6.27(2)(e) .................................................................................................................................. 175
Rule 6.27(2)(g) .................................................................................................................................. l 76
Rule 6.27(2)(h) .................................................................................................................................. 176
Rule 6.27(2)(i) ................................................................................................................................... l 76
Rule 6.270) ....................................................................................................................................... 177
Rule 6.27(2)(k) .................................................................................................................................. 177
APPENDIX 2 - COUNTRIES TO WHICH THE RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF
JUDGMENTS ACT 1934 EXTENDS ..................................................................................................... 179
APPENDIX 3 - EXAMPLES FOR DISCUSSION OF CHOICE OF LAW, FORUM AND AGENT
FOR SERVICE CLAUSES ...................................................................................................................... 183
EXAMPLE 1: ADVANCE BY JAPANESE BANKS TO NEW ZEALAND BORROWERS ....................................... 183
Law ................................................................................................................................................ 183
Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................................................... 183
EXAMPLE 2: ADVANCE BY FOREIGN LENDER TO NEW ZEALAND BORROWER ......................................... 183
Applicable Law ................................................................................................................................. 183
EXAMPLE 3: ADVANCE BY SYNDICATE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKS TO CAYMAN ISLANDS SUBSIDIARY OF
NEW ZEALAND COMPANY, GUARANTEED BY NEW ZEALAND COMPANY ................................................ 183
Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................................................... 183
Law ................................................................................................................................................ 184
EXAMPLE 4: SHARE SALE AGREEMENT, NEW ZEALAND VENDOR, FOREIGN PURCHASERS AND
GUARANTORS ......................................................................................................................................... 184
Governing Law. ................................................................................................................................. 184
Submission to Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 185
Process Agent. ................................................................................................................................... 185
EXAMPLE 5: LEASE BY NORWEGIAN LESSOR TO NORWEGIAN LESSEE, LESSEE A SUBSIDIARY OF AN
ENGLISH COMPANY AND ACQUISITION OF ASSET FINANCED BY ENGLISH BANKS WITH SECURITY INTEREST
IN LEASE ................................................................................................................................................. 185
EXAMPLE 6: FACILITY PROVIDED BY SYNDICATE OF UK LENDERS TO A NUMBER OF RELATED BORROWER
COMPANIES, INCLUDING ONE ENGLISH COMPANY, FOR PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT .................................... 186
Law, Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................................... 186
EXAMPLE 7: FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS INVOLVING NZ AND US PARTIES .......................................... 187
Service ofP rocess and Jurisdiction; Waiver ofi mmunity ................................................................ 187
Goddard and Mclachlan • Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is "private international law"?
Transactions and people cross borders with ever greater frequency. The Internet (along
with other developments in technology) has made it simpler and less expensive than ever
before to communicate across borders, and to deal with people anywhere in the world.
Global trade continues to grow, and international air travel continues to increase
dramatically. As the practical importance of borders diminishes, it is increasingly
common for lawyers to encounter transactions, relationships and disputes that have
connections with more than one country. These cross-border situations raise special
issues which are not encountered in a purely domestic context. New Zealand lawyers
need to have at their disposal the legal tools required to address these cross-border issues.
Private international law, or "conflict of laws" as the subject is also known, is the body
of law concerned with the issues which arise where transactions, relationships or disputes
have connections with more than one country. The subject is concerned with topics as
diverse as the jurisdiction in which billion dollar financing agreements may be enforced,
the risks facing an Internet service provider (ISP) in relation to untrue statements on a
website that can be accessed from anywhere in the world, and trying to enforce a New
South Wales District Court judgment against a judgment debtor living in New Zealand.
Where a transaction or relationship or dispute has links with more than one country, the
special issues which need to be addressed include:
(a) Where will any dispute be determined?
(b) Which country's law will be applied to determine issues that arise in the course of the
dispute?
( c) Is effective interim relief available, pending trial? To what extent can interim orders
made in one country be effective in relation to persons or assets outside that country?
Will courts in country A grant interim relief in support of proceedings in country B?
( d) How can evidence be obtained from a person in country A for use in a trial in country
B? Can documents in country A, or which are controlled by a person in country A, be
obtained on discovery in connection with proceedings in country B?
( e) If a judgment is given or an order is made in a court in country A, what is the effect
of that judgment or order in country B?
The rubric "private international law" does not refer to a body of international rules
which are the same in every country. The domestic law of each country contains rules
which determine how the questions set out above will be answered in the courts of that
country. Private international law varies from country to country. But there are
substantial similarities between the private international law rules of common law
countries, and the development of the common law in this field has been strongly
influenced by civil law concepts. The development of New Zealand's private
international law, like that of many other countries, also reflects the existence of a
number of important international agreements and coordination initiatives in relation to
aspects of private international law, which have achieved a degree of consistency among
some countries on certain issues.
1
NZLS CLE Seminar • Private International Law Goddard and Mclachlan • Introduction
New Zealand's private international law seeks to answer the questions set out above Cross-border disputes can raise difficult practical questions in relation to evidence and
where they fall to be resolved by a New Zealand court. For the purposes of a study of discovery across borders. These evidence issues are less common than questions of
New Zealand private international law, the questions can be recast as follows: jurisdiction or interim relief, but are of increasing importance with the growth in volume
of litigation involving foreign parties and witnesses, and New Zealand businesses which
(a) Will a particular dispute be decided by a New Zealand court?
operate in more than one country.
(b) Which country's law will be applied by a New Zealand court when determining
issues that arise in the dispute? The fifth key private international law issue which concerns New Zealand lawyers is the
enforcement and recognition in New Zealand ofj udgments and orders off oreign courts.
(c) What interim relief will a New Zealand court grant in respect of persons or assets
It is increasingly common for a judgment given overseas to be brought to New Zealand
outside New Zealand? Will a New Zealand court grant interim relief in support of
for enforcement against a New Zealand resident or a New Zealand business, or against a
foreign proceedings - and if so, in what circumstances?
foreign defendant's assets in New Zealand.
(d) When can a New Zealand court accept evidence from a person outside New Zealand?
What can be done to compel the production of documents outside New Zealand, or
the provision of evidence by a person outside New Zealand? Will a New Zealand
1.2 The sources of New Zealand private international law
court assist in the taking of evidence for use in foreign proceedings? Will a New
Zealand court provide assistance in connection with discovery of documents in New New Zealand private international law comprises a mix of common law rules and
Zealand, for the purpose of foreign proceedings?
legislation.
( e) What is the effect in New Zealand of a judgment or order of a foreign court?
New Zealand's common law rules of private international law are derived from the
The first of these issues is the question of jurisdiction. Where a dispute arises in an English common law. Decisions of English and other Commonwealth courts are of
international context, with parties resident in different countries, and performance of considerable assistance to a New Zealand court considering these issues. And some of
the legislative rules in New Zealand are modelled on English statutes.
obligations possibly taking place in yet another country, it is important to know which
court is likely to determine the dispute. New Zealand private international law
As mentioned above, the law in relation to some aspects of private international law in
determines when a New Zealand court has jurisdiction to determine a dispute, and also
New Zealand results from international legal coordination, through treaties, model laws
the circumstances in which a New Zealand court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction
and other instruments. The relevant instruments, the travaux preparatoires, and court
because a dispute should be determined in another court that is also able to hear the case.
decisions and commentaries from other countries all play an important role in
New Zealand private international law is also concerned with the issues that arise in New
understanding and interpreting the relevant New Zealand provisions.
Zealand proceedings where the same dispute is the subject of concurrent proceedings in
another country.
But New Zealand is gradually developing an indigenous system of private international
law, as the body of relevant New Zealand case law develops and as legislation gives
If a New Zealand court does have jurisdiction to hear a dispute, it then has to decide
effect to ANZCERTA, and other trans-Tasman cooperation arrangements. In some areas
which country's law will determine the various issues that arise. This is the question of
the common law continues to apply and develop in New Zealand although in England it
choice of law. There is in general no separate set of substantive rules which apply in
has been replaced with statutory provisions implementing European Union obligations.
international cases: the choice of law rules of "private international law" are rules of
New Zealand law has also developed separately from Australian law in a number of
New Zealand law which enable a New Zealand court to determine which system of law
respects, partly as a result of the fact that Australia is a federal state, and so has a law of
should be used to resolve a particular issue before a New Zealand court. The system of
conflicts which is to some extent constitutionally based.
law which is applied to determine each substantive issue must be a system of law in
force either in New Zealand or in another country.
The two most significant changes in New Zealand's private international law in the last
decade are:
It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the question of jurisdiction is quite independent
of the question of which law applies. New Zealand courts can, and do, decide cases in • the new High Court Rules, in force from 1 February 2009. The new Rules have
which issues are governed by foreign law. introduced a significantly improved regime for service of proceedings abroad, and
have for the first time enabled New Zealand courts to grant interim relief in support
The question of interim relief is of great practical importance in many cross-border
of foreign proceedings;
cases. A number of special issues arise where interim relief is sought in New Zealand
proceedings against a person outside New Zealand, or in relation to assets or information • the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (TTPA), which is expected to come into
held outside New Zealand. And New Zealand courts are increasingly being asked to force in the second half of 2012. The TTPA fundamentally changes the rules for
make interim orders in support of the determination of substantive proceedings before a service of New Zealand proceedings in Australia, and enforcement of Australian
foreign court. judgments in New Zealand. The corresponding Australian legislation does the same
for service of Australian proceedings in New Zealand, and enforcement of New
2 3
NZLS CLE Seminar • Private International Law Goddard and Mclachlan • Introduction
Zealand judgments in Australia. Trans-Tasman litigation will be much simpler, and In July 2008 the two Governments signed the "Agreement between the Government of
less expensive, under the new regime. New Zealand and the Government of Australia on Trans-Tasman Proceedings and
Regulatory Enforcement". The Preamble to the Agreement includes the parties'
acknowledgement of their confidence in each other's judicial and regulatory institutions
1.3 The TTPA- an overview and their desire to establish a new trans-Tasman regime to further streamline civil court
proceedings.
The vast majority of cross-border issues that New Zealand lawyers encounter arise in
relation to Australia. Despite the close ties between New Zealand and Australia, the law Legislation to implement the Agreement has been enacted in both New Zealand (the
of each country has for most purposes treated the other as a foreign country to which the TTPA) and Australia (the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth)). The regime will
standard rules on service of proceedings and enforcement of judgments will apply. come into force when the necessary rules of court have been finalised in both countries.
However the TTP A, which as noted above is expected to come into force in the near
The purpose of the TTP A is described in the Act as "to streamline the process for
future, will substantially simplify trans-Tasman litigation. The provisions of the TTP A in
resolving civil proceedings with a trans-Tasman element in order to reduce costs and
relation to particular topics, such as service of proceedings and enforcement of
improve efficiency; and minimise existing impediments to enforcing certain Australian
judgments, are discussed in detail in later chapters of this booklet. But a brief
judgments and regulatory sanctions; and implement the Trans-Tasman Agreement in
introduction to the TTP A is appropriate at this stage, given its practical significance and
New Zealand law. "4
the range of issues it addresses.
The Agreement may be taken into account in interpreting the TTP A, in accordance with
In 2003 the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand established a Working Group
the usual principles that apply to legislation giving effect to an international instrument.
to look at the potential for adoption of a trans-Tasman regime for allocation of forum and
enforcement of judgments, based on the Australian inter-state arrangements set out in the
Key features of the new regime include:
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) (SEPA).1 The Working Group reported
in 2006, recommending a trans-Tasman regime broadly along these lines. 2 In the words • a plaintiff can serve civil proceedings issued in one country in the other country,
of the Working Group Final Report:3 without the need to establish any particular connection between the proceedings and
the forum;
The Working Group's central recommendation is that a "trans-Tasman regime",
modelled on the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), be introduced as
• the defendant can apply for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that a court in the
between the two countries. The proposed regime would allow initiating process in
other country is the more appropriate court for the proceeding;
civil proceedings issued out of a court in Australia or New Zealand to be served in
the other country, with the same effect as if service had occurred in the other country
• a judgment from one country can be registered in the other. It will have the same
with the same effect as if service had occurred in the country of issue. Currently, a
force and effect, and can be enforced, as a judgment of the court where it is
range of judgments of Australian and New Zealand courts can be registered and
registered;
enforced by a court in the other country. We propose that the range of enforceable
judgments be broadened, and that judgments only be refused enforcement if they
• a judgment may be refused enforcement in the other country only on public policy
conflict with the public policy of the other country.
grounds. Other grounds, such as breach of natural justice, will have to be raised with
The proposed trans-Tasman regime would be supported by wider use of the original court;
teleconference and video link technology to enable remote appearances in trans
Tasman proceedings. The Working Group recommends that, for appearances in civil • a judgment can only be varied, set aside or appealed in the court of origin. The court
proceedings, a party in the other country (and their lawyer) be allowed to appear by of registration is able to stay enforcement to allow this to happen;
telephone or video link with the leave of the court in most cases, and as ofright in an
• all final civil judgments, including non-money judgments, will come under this
application for a stay of proceedings, on the grounds that a court in the other country
is more appropriate to decide the dispute. regime (with a small list of exceptions, and the potential to add to these by agreement
over time);
Some of the Working Group's recommendations would improve regulatory
enforcement between Australia and New Zealand. Civil pecuniary penalties from one • civil penalty judgments are enforceable under the regime, unless expressly excluded
country would be enforceable in the other unless specifically excluded. Criminal
(there is provision for a "negative list" to be adopted, and added to over time);
fines imposed for certain regulatory offences in one country would be enforceable in
the other in the same way as a civil judgment debt. • fines for breach of specified regulatory statutes are also enforceable under this
regime, as if they were civil judgments in favour of the State in which they were
rendered (there is a "positive list" which can be added to over time);
For the genesis of this work, see David Goddard "Trans-Tasman Legal Coordination - The Next Frontiers" (paper
• increased provision for parties and counsel to appear by video or telephone link from
presented to Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law Conference 2003, Wellington, New
Zealand) available at http://law.anu.edu.au/anzsil/conferences/2003/2003proceedings.pdf. the other country. There is a right to appear remotely for applications for a stay
2
Trans-Tasman Working Group Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement (Final Report,
December 2006) available at http://www.ag.gov.au/Documents/5Trans-Tasman%202006.pdf.
At 3. 4 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010, s 3( 1) .
4
5
Goddard and Mclachlan • Introduction
NZLS CLE Seminar • Private International Law
The basic approach throughout this booklet is:
(without the need for counsel to be admitted in the forum hearing the application).
For other remote appearances, the leave of the court is required; (a) to set out briefly the fundamental principles in relation to each topic considered;
• Australian and New Zealand courts have authority to grant interim relief in support of (b) to indicate where a more detailed treatment of the topic may be found - steering New
proceedings in the other country's courts. Zealand lawyers towards relevant texts, and away from less helpful ( or completely
irrelevant) ones;
The existing arrangements for giving evidence remotely between the two countries,
( c) to draw attention to recent developments;
which have been in place for some years now and which work well, will be expanded
and streamlined in a number of respects when the legislation comes into force. ( d) to identify any relevant New Zealand authorities which may be of assistance.
The textbooks referred to most frequently are:
1.4 The scope of this booklet
• Lawrence Collins (ed), Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (14th ed,
Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2006)) (Dicey)
This booklet is intended to provide a guide to private international law in New Zealand,
from a practical perspective. It focuses on civil and commercial dealings across borders. • The Laws of New Zealand "Conflict of Laws: Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments"
It does not address the many private international law issues that arise in the context of (Laws NZ)
family law and succession. The aim is to provide a conceptual framework for thinking
• Peter North, James Fawcett and Janine Carruthers, Cheshire, North & Fawcett:
about cross-border legal issues, and some practical assistance in applying the relevant
Private International Law (14th ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008)
principles in the context of cross-border transactions and cross-border disputes.
(Cheshire & North)
The booklet also does not deal with international arbitration, a very large subject in itself. • Martin Davies, Andrew Bell, and Paul Le Gay Brereton Nygh 's Conflict of Laws in
Useful sources of guidance on cross-border arbitration issues include David Williams Australia (8th ed, LexisNexis, Australia, 2010) (Nygh)
QC and Amokura Kawharu Williams and Kawharu on Arbitration (LexisNexis NZ,
Wellington, 2011) and Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern and Martin Dicey is generally regarded as the leading text in this area, and is often cited as an
Hunter Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed, Oxford University authority in its own right. It is always useful to refer to it on issues where the common
Press, Oxford, 2009). law rules still apply in both England and New Zealand, or where the statutory rules are to
like effect. Current editions of Dicey also continue to cite and analyse relevant New
A central goal of this booklet is to assist New Zealand lawyers to identify the relevant Zealand authority. However, care needs to be taken when using current editions of
rules of private international law when cross-border issues arise. This can be far from Dicey, as in a number of areas New Zealand law is now very different from English law.
simple in New Zealand today. There is no current New Zealand private international law Old editions of Dicey should not be thrown away. They are very useful in New Zealand!
textbook.5 The Laws of New Zealand "Conflict of Laws: Jurisdiction and Foreign
Judgments" title provides detailed commentary in relation to aspects of New Zealand
private international law - but does not address questions of choice of law, or interim
relief, or cross-border evidence and discovery. The "Conflict of Laws: Choice of Law"
title contains a fairly detailed discussion of choice of law principles, and touches on
cross-border evidence and discovery issues. It is a useful source of references to New
Zealand case-law on choice of law issues. However the format of Laws of New Zealand
is not well suited to exploration of the complex and at times uncertain issues that arise in
the choice of law domain.
English and Australian textbooks are useful, but are by no means an infallible guide for
New Zealand lawyers. When consulting them, it is important to keep in mind the real
possibility of differences between the law of New Zealand and the laws of other common
law countries.
B D Inglis, Conflict of Laws (Sweet & Maxwell (NZ), Wellington, 1959) is the only New Zealand text that has
been published to date: it concentrates principally on family law topics, and the law has changed significantly in
these areas, but the general sections are still of interest. The 4th edition of P E Nygh 's Conflict of Laws In Australia
(Butterworths, Sydney) published in 1984 includes comprehensive references to New Zealand statutes and
decisions up to 1983, but subsequent editions have not included New Zealand material except where relevant for
the purposes of Australian law.
6 7