¹ (1870) LR 6 QB 1. In this article, ‘the rule in Phillips v Eyre’ is taken to refer to the family of choice of law rules (including the double actionability rule) that trace their origin to the decision in Phillips v Eyre itself. Each species of the rule, consistent with the structure of Phillips v Eyre, makes some reference to both the lex fori and the lex loci delicti in dealing with cross-border tort cases.Google Scholar

² Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Benham, ‘The Halley’ (1868) LR 2 PC 193.Google Scholar

³ [1971] AC 356, 391.Google Scholar

⁴ Morris, JC ‘The Proper Law of a Tort’ (1951) 64 Harvard Law Review 881.Google Scholar

⁵ Currie, BSelected Essays on the Conflict of Laws (Duke University Press Durham NC 1963) 177–87.Google Scholar

⁶ Red Sea Insurance Co v Bouyges SA [1995] 1 AC 190.Google Scholar

⁷ Carter, PB ‘Choice of Law in Tort: The Role of the Lex Fori’ [1995] CLJ 38, 40–1.Google Scholar See also Reed, A ‘The Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 and the Need for Escape Devices’ (1996) 15 Civil Justice Quarterly 305, 306.Google Scholar

⁸ Coupland v Arabian Gulf Oil Co [1983] 3 All ER 226Google Scholar; Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1986] AC 717, 740–1, 752–3.Google Scholar

⁹ M'Elroy v M'Allister 1949 SC 110.Google Scholar

¹⁰ McLean v Pettigrew [1945] SCR 62, 78.Google Scholar

¹¹ Grimes v Cloutier (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 505Google Scholar; Prefontaine Estate v Frizzle (1990) 65 DLR (4th) 275Google Scholar

¹² See Davies, M ‘Exactly What is the Australian Choice of Law Rule in Torts Cases?’ (1996) 70 Australian Law Journal 711Google Scholar; Lindell, G ‘Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang’ (2002) 3 Melbourne Journal of International Law 362, 367–8.Google Scholar

¹³ Wilson v Nattrass (1995) 21 MVR 41, 51.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Blaikie, J ‘Choice of Law in Delict and Tort: Reform at Last!’ (1997) 1 Edinburgh Law Review 361, 365–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rodger, BJ ‘Ascertaining the Statutory Lex Loci Delicti: Certain Difficulties under the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995’ (1998) 47 ICLQ 205, 205Google Scholar; Walker, J ‘Choice of Law in Tort: The Supreme Court of Canada Enters the Fray’ (1995) 111 LQR 397, 398.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Carter, PB ‘Choice of Law in Tort and Delict’ (1991) 107 LQR 405, 409Google Scholar; Carter (n 7) 41; Carter, PB ‘The Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995’ (1996) 112 LQR 190, 193Google Scholar; Kincaid, P ‘Jensen v Tolofson and the Revolution in Tort Choice of Law’ (1995) 74 Canadian Bar Review 537, 553.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Carter, PB, ‘The Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995’ (1996) 112 LQR 190, 193Google Scholar; Reed, (n 7) 320–1.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Carter, (n 16) 193–4.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Morse, CGJ ‘Torts in Private International Law: A New Statutory Framework’ (1996) 45 ICLQ 888, 895Google Scholar; Reed, (n 7) 321–1Google Scholar; Rodger, (n 14) 205.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Carter, (n 16) 194Google Scholar; cf Reed, (n 7) 313.Google Scholar

²⁰ ibid 314–20.

²¹ cf Briggs, A ‘In Praise and Defence of Renvoi’ (1998) 87 ICLQ 877.Google Scholar

²² (1988) 169 CLR 41.Google Scholar

²³ Followed in Byrnes v Groote Eylandt Mining Corporation (1990) 19 NSWLR 13, 23, 32–3Google Scholar, and Stevens v Head (1991) 14 MVR 327, 330.Google Scholar

²⁴ McKain v RW Miller & Co (SA) Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 1Google Scholar; Stevens v Head (1993) 176 CLR 433.Google Scholar

²⁵ [1994] 3 SCR 1022.Google Scholar

²⁶ ibid 1051–2, 1063–5.

²⁷ ibid 1047.

²⁸ ibid.

²⁹ ibid 1050.

³⁰ ibid 1054.

³¹ ibid 1061–2.

³² ibid 1078.

³³ ibid 1071–2. Emphasis in the original.

³⁴ ibid 1068–9.

³⁵ ibid 1071–3.

³⁶ Breavington v Godleman (1988) 169 CLR 41, 77–8, 84–5, 114Google Scholar; McKain v RW Miller & Co (SA) Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 1, 18, 39.Google Scholar

³⁷ (2000) 203 CLR 503.Google Scholar

³⁸ (1991) 174 CLR 1.Google Scholar

³⁹ ibid 44.

⁴⁰ (1993) 176 CLR 433.Google Scholar

⁴¹ ibid 460.

⁴² (2000) 203 CLR 503, 544, 554, 570–5.Google Scholar

⁴³ cf Davis, G ‘John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson: Choice of Law in Tort at the Dawning of the 21st Century’ (2000) 24 Melbourne University Law Review 982, 986.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ (2000) 203 CLR 503, 533–4.Google ScholarSee also 536–7, 551.Google Scholar That obliged States to surrender any attempt to apply their own policies to events that occurred in another State: ibid 533–4, 541. In addition the Court was influenced by factors like the legislative requirements for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, people's expectations to be subject to the law of the State they happen to be in, certainty and predictability, and the deterrence of forum shopping: ibid 532, 536, 538–40, 552–3, 560.

⁴⁵ ibid 542.

⁴⁶ ibid 544.

⁴⁷ ibid 538.

⁴⁸ ibid 533–4. Kirby, J (559, 562–3) concurred in the adoption of this choice of law regime. Callinan J (576) dissented on the choice of law point; expressing some preference for Phillips v Eyre and even allowing a public policy exception to the rule to the extent that it required actionability in the place of the tort.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Oz-US Film Productions Pty Limited v Heath [2001] NSWSC 298, [93], [105]–[110]Google Scholar; Zhang v Regie des Usines Renault SA [2000] NSWCA 188, [50]–[52].Google Scholar

⁵⁰ (2002) 210 CLR 491.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Whether that meant the metropole or New Caledonia made no real difference. Kirby J suggested (539) that New Caledonia was the locus delicti.

⁵² (2002) 210 CLR 491, 520.Google Scholar

⁵³ cf Smart, P St J ‘Foreign Torts and the High Court of Australia’ (2002) 118 LQR 512, 515.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ (2002) 210 CLR 491, 516–17, 520, 528–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Blunden v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 203 ALR 189.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Law Com No 193 (1990)Google Scholar; Scot Law Com No 129 (1990).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ A Briggs ‘Choice of Law in Tort and Delict’ [1995] LMCLQ 519, 520.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Law Com No 193 (1990)Google Scholar; Scot Law Com No 129 (1990) 10 (para 3.2).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ ibid at 10 (para 3.3).

⁶⁰ Blaikie, (n 14) 366Google Scholar; Briggs, (n 57) 520Google Scholar; Carter, (n 16) 194Google Scholar; Morse, (n 18) 891–2.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s 11(2)(a).

⁶² ibid s n(2)(b).

⁶³ ibid s 11(2)(c).

⁶⁴ ibid s 12(1).

⁶⁵ ibid s 10.

⁶⁶ ibid s 13.

⁶⁷ Rogerson, P ‘Choice of Law in Tort: A Missed Opportunity?’ (1995) 44 ICLQ 650, 658.Google Scholar It appears that it is impermissible to use the pre-existing common law to identify where, under s 11 of the Act, a tort is deemed to occur: Protea Leasing Limited v Royal Air Cambodge Company Limited [2002] EWHC 2731 (Comm), at [78] [80]Google Scholar; Morin v Bonhams & Brooks [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 880, 888.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Briggs, (n 57) 526.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s 14(3)(b).

⁷⁰ AE Anton with Beaumont, PPrivate International Law (2nd ednGreen Edinburgh 1990) 404–5.Google ScholarCf James Burrough Distillers pic v Speymalt Whiskey Distributors Ltd 1989 SLT 561, 563–4Google Scholar, where there is no mention of Boys v Chaplin's adjustments to the rule in Phillips v Eyre.

⁷¹ Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 (UK) ss 1(1), 7(4); Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1984 (UK) s 23A.

⁷² For a criticism of the judicial activism inherent in the Australian changes, see Amankwah, A, ‘Judicial Legislation: A New Phase?’ (2000) 7 James Cook University Law Review 254, 258.Google Scholar

⁷³ See especially Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s 13(1). This was the view taken of the Act's preservation of traditional concepts of procedural law in Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32, [51].Google Scholar

⁷⁴ [1995] 1 AC 190.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ ibid 199, 202.

⁷⁶ ibid 199.

⁷⁷ [2002] 2 AC 883.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ ibid 932.

⁷⁹ Harding v Wealands [2005] 1 All ER 415.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ ibid 444; Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32, [36], [68]–[69], [83].Google Scholar

⁸¹ Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No 3) [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 360Google Scholar; [2002] 3 All ER 209, 215, 248.Google ScholarSee also Milne v Moores [1999] ScotCS 305Google Scholar; Pearce v Ove Orup Partnership Ltd [2000] Ch 403, 443Google Scholar; Al Sabah v Grupo Torras SA [2000] EWCA Civ 273Google Scholar; Ennstone Building Products Limited v Stanger Limited [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 479Google Scholar; Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 17.Google Scholar

⁸² Guardian of Stoeterau v Crow snest Air Ltd (1995) 5 BCLR (3d) 251, [6]–[7]Google Scholar; Perron v R.JR MacDonald (1996) 81 BCAC 303, [6]Google Scholar; Stewart v Stewart (1997) 145 DLR (4th) 228, 234–6Google Scholar; Dnistransky v Homer [1998] 3 WWR 37Google Scholar; Noël v Robichaud (1997) 193 NBR (2d) 10Google Scholar; Brill v Korpaach Estate (1997) 148 DLR (4th) 467Google Scholar; Gallant v Diocese of Labrador City-Schefferville (2001) 200 DLR (4th) 643, 650.Google Scholar

⁸³ Dunn v Comalco Aluminium Limited [2002] TasSC 14, [14]Google Scholar; Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2002] WASC 231, [185], [196]Google Scholar, but cf Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 213.Google ScholarCf Bakker v Adrichem [1997] 5 WWR 151, 157–8Google Scholar; Perron v RJR. MacDonald (1996) 81 BCAC 303, [5].Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Dnistransky v Horner [1998] 3 WWR 37.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Stewart v Stewart (1997) 145 DLR (4th) 228, 234–6.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611, 626.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See also R v Kovacevic 2000 BCCA 161, [24]Google Scholar; Beadovin v Conley [2000] 11 WWR 436, 462–3.Google ScholarThe House of Lords reiterated a usual refusal to recognize prospective overruling in National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited [2005] UKHL 41.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ El-Syoufi v Alcazar [2001] ACTSC 1.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Simonfi v Fimmel [2000] ACTSC 54, [4]Google Scholar; Fawcett v Oliver [2000] ACTSC 70, [1].Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Hardham v Flood [2001] ACTSC 21, [11]Google Scholar; Hooper v Robinson [2002] QDC 80, [21].Google Scholar

⁹¹ Dyer v Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Limited [2003] NSWSC 213, [4].Google Scholar

⁹² Union Shipping New Zealand Ltd v Morgan (2002) 54 NSWLR 690, 692.Google Scholar

⁹³ Perron v RJR MacDonald (1996) 81 BCAC 303, [6].Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Carter (n 16) 193.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Canada: Drews v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia [1] 55 BCLR (3d) 281, [28]Google Scholar; Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co v Lindblom (2001) 200 DLR (4th) 123, 128Google Scholar; Kingsway General Insurance Co v Canada Life Insurance Co (2001) 149 OAC 303Google Scholar; Guardian of Matt v Barber (2002) 216 DLR (4th) 574, 582Google Scholar; cf. Yeung v Au 2004 BCSC 1648, [34]–[35].Google ScholarEngland: West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA [2005] EWHC 454 (Comm).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Kingsway General Insurance Co v Canada Life Insurance Co (2001) 149 OAC 303, [12]Google Scholar; West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA [2005] EWHC 454 (Comm), [28]–[31].Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Collins, L (ed) Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (12th ednSweet & Maxwell London 1993) 1522Google Scholar; Castel, J-GCanadian Conflict of Laws (3rd ednButterworths Toronto 1994) 591–2.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Voyage Company Industries Inc v Craster (1998–08–11) BCSC C976871, [12].Google Scholar

⁹⁹ (2002) 222 DLR (4th) 453.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Class Proceedings Act 1996 (BC) s 6(1).

¹⁰¹ (2002) 222 DLR (4th) 453, 462.Google Scholar

¹⁰² ibid 481.

¹⁰³ ibid 473, 481, 483, 487, 490–2.

¹⁰⁴ ibid 490.

¹⁰⁵ ibid 492–3.

¹⁰⁶ ibid 491–2.

¹⁰⁷ eg Voyage Company Industries Inc v Craster (1998–08–11) BCSC C976871.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ (2002) 222 DLR (4th) 453, 485. See also Voyage, where the British Columbia Supreme Court considered that the questions of company management were to be governed by the law of Yukon.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ eg Guardian of Matt v Barber (2002) 216 DLR (4th) 574, where the Ontario Court applied Florida law.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Tolofson v Jensen [1994] 3 SCR 1022, 1050Google Scholar; John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, 538–9, 563Google Scholar; Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491, 519, 539.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ cf Georges v Basilique de Sainte-Anne-de Beaupre (2004–08–31) OSC 03-CV-258, [28]–[29].Google Scholar

¹¹² Australia: Reid v AGCO Australia Ltd [2000] VSC 363, [4]Google Scholar; Simonfi v Fimmel [2000] ACTSC 54Google Scholar; Fawcett v Oliver [2000] ACTSC 70, [16]Google Scholar; Thompson v Evanoss [2000] ACTSC 73, [28]Google Scholar; El-Syoufi v Alcazar [2000] ACTSC 109, [1], [20]Google Scholar; Moon v Moon [2001] FCA 1712, [1]Google Scholar; Moon v Moon [2001] ACTSC 17, [114]Google Scholar; Bellotti v Stair [2002] QDC 161, [3]Google Scholar; El-Syoufi v Alcazar [2001] ACTSC 1Google Scholar; Kalsbeck v Williams [2001] ACTSC 5, [1]Google Scholar; Hardham v Flood [2001] ACTSC 21Google Scholar; Labuda v Langford [2001] ACTSC 108, [38]Google Scholar; Janetski v Janetski [2001] VSC 328, [27]Google Scholar; Hooper v Robinson [2002] QDC 80, [21]Google Scholar; FAI Allianz Insurance Ltd v Lang [2004] NSWCA 413, [23].Google ScholarCanada: Bakker v Adrichem (1997) 30 BCLR (3d) 199, [8]Google Scholar; Stewart v Stewart Estate (1996) 195 NBR (2d) 36, [29]Google Scholar; Ross v Ford Motor Co [1998] NWTR 175Google Scholar; Stewart v Stewart (1997) 145 DLR (4th) 228Google Scholar; Hrynenko v Hrynenko (B) Dnistransky v Homer [1998] 3 WWR 37Google Scholar; Leonard v Houle (D) 646Google Scholar; Hanlan v Sernesky (1997) 35 OR (3d) 603Google Scholar; Moxham v Canada (TD) [1998] 3 FC 441; Rivas v Damacio ( 226 AR 287, [29]Google Scholar; Estate of Throness 1998 ABQB 1132, [72]Google Scholar; Drews v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (1998) 55 BCLR (3d) 281, [28]Google Scholar; Hrynenko v Hrynenko (1998) 168 DLR (4th) 437Google Scholar; Wong v Wei (1999) 65 BCLR (3d) 222Google Scholar; Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co v Lindblom (2001) 200 DLR (4th) 123, 135Google Scholar; Gill v Gill 2000 BCSC 870Google Scholar; Manitoba (Workers' Compensation Board) v Kraynyk [2] 9 WWR 424, 431Google Scholar; Doiron v Hogan 2001 NBCA 97, [24]Google Scholar; Kingsway General Insurance Co v Canada Life Insurance Co (2001) 149 OAC 303, [12]Google Scholar; Day v Guarantee Co of North America 2002 NSSC 12, [14], [18]Google Scholar; Fortune v Reynolds 2002 NSSC 288, [10]Google Scholar; Castillo v Castillo (2002) 313 AR 189, [11]Google Scholar; Subramaniam v Shetler (2002) 61 OR (3d) 136, [11]Google Scholar; Wong v Lee (2002) 211 DLR (4th) 69Google Scholar; Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611Google Scholar; Guardian of Matt v Barber (2002) 216 DLR (4th) 574, 582Google Scholar; Britton v O'Callaghan (2002) 219 DLR (4th) 300, 305Google Scholar; Roy c Boucher (2002–09–30) QCCA 500–09–009731–001Google Scholar; Bezan v Vander Hooft (2003) 333 AR 215Google Scholar; Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v Unifund Assurance Company 2003 SCC 40, [25]Google Scholar; Brown v Flaharty (2004–12–02) ONSC 30895, [3]Google Scholar; Castillo v Castillo (2004) 244 DLR (4th) 603, 605, 609Google Scholar; Holomego v Brady (2004–12–16) ONSC 01-CV-203882CM, [1]Google Scholar; Bezan v Vander Hooft (2004) 346 AR 272, [11]Google Scholar; Soriano (Litigation Guardian) v Palacios (2004–05–19) ONSC 01–CV–220331CM3, [4]Google Scholar; Roy v North American Leisure Group Inc 2004 CanLH 3078 (ONCA), [2]Google Scholar; Yeung v Au 2004 BCSC 1648, [31]Google Scholar; Soriano v Palacios (2005–06–03) ONCA C42225, [14].Google ScholarUnited Kingdom: Edmunds v Simmonds [2001] 1 WLR 1003, 1005Google Scholar; Hulse v Chambers [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812, 813Google Scholar; Harding v Wealands [2005] 1 All ER 415Google Scholar; Banks v CGU Insurance Plc [2004] ScotSC 241, [1]Google Scholar; Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Union Shipping New Zealand Ltd v Morgan (2002) 54 NSWLR 690, 730–3, 736Google Scholar; Booth v Phillips [2004] EWHC 1437 (Admlty), [57].Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Australia: Hatfield v Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd (2001) 162 FLR 97, [29].Google ScholarCanada: Guardian of Stoeterau v Crowsnest Air Ltd (1995) 5 BCLR (3d) 251, [7]Google Scholar; Gal v Northern Mountain Helicopters Inc (1998) 54 BCLR (3d) 87, [29]Google Scholar; Herman v Alberta (Public Trustee) (2002) 308 AR 320, [1].Google ScholarUnited Kingdom: Bristow Helicopters Ltd v Sikorksy Aircraft Corporation [2004] 2 lloyd's Rep 150, 153, 156.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Shane v JCB Belgium NV (2003–11–14) ONSC 02–CV–19871, [1], [22], [51]Google Scholar; British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd (2004) 239 DLR (4th) 412, 431, 434–5, 462, 489Google Scholar; Davey v Medtel Pty Limited (No 3) [2004] FCA 807, [19]–[20]Google Scholar; cf Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491Google Scholar; Nicholls v Brisbane Slipways and Engineering Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 193, [8]–[10].Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Shane v JCB Belgium NV (2003–11–14) ONSC 02–CV–19871.Google ScholarThe ascription of the locus in Nicholls v Brisbane Slipways and Engineering Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 193Google Scholar, [8]–[10] to the forum, Queensland, where defective installation occurred, rather than Western Australia, where the injury was sustained, is consistent with the method of the Australian High Court in Renault, where the joint majority considered that the locus was where the defective manufacture took place (France) rather than where the injury occurred (New Caledonia). In neither case were the laws of the different places different.

¹¹⁷ The principles used were those of Moron v Pyle National (Canada) Ltd [1975] 1 SCR 393Google Scholar and Distillers Co (Bio-Chemicals) Ltd v Thompson [1971] AC 458.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Integral Energy & Environmental Engineering Limited v Schenker of Canada Limited (2001) 206 DLR (4th) 265, 269Google Scholar; Shane v JCB Belgium NV (2003–11–14) ONSC 02–CV–19871.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s 11(2)(a)–(b).

¹²⁰ Tolofson v Jensen [1994] 3 SCR 1022, 1050.Google ScholarSee also John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, 560.Google Scholar

¹²¹ See OT Africa Line Limited v Magic Sportswear Corporation [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep 252, 256–7Google Scholar, where legal proceedings alleged to have amounted to procuring a breach of contract were held to have occurred in Ontario, where the proceedings were issued. See also Equitas Ltd v Wave City Shipping Company Ltd [2005] EWHC 923 (Comtn), [18]–[20].Google Scholar

¹²² Coffins, L (ed) Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (13th ednSweet & Maxwell London 2000) 1547–8, 1567Google Scholar; North, P and Fawcett, JCheshire and North's Private International Law (13th ednButterworths London 1999) 659Google Scholar; Nygh, P and Davies, MConflict of Laws in Australia (7th ednButterworths Sydney 2002) 423Google Scholar; cf Castel, (n 97) 651.Google Scholar

¹²³ Barclay's Bank Plc v Inc Incorporated [2000] 6 WWR 511, 523, 523–4Google Scholar; Morin v Bonhams & Brooks Ltd [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 880, 888Google Scholar; Kvaerner US Inc v AMEC E & C Services Limited 2004 BCSC 635, [26]Google Scholar; Cresbury Screen Entertainment Ltd v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce 2004 BCSC 349, [28], [55], [56]Google Scholar; Cultivaust Pty Ltd v Grain Pool Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 638, [273].Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Morin v Bonhams & Brooks Ltd [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 880, 888.Google ScholarThis parallels the principles of Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538, 569.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ (2002) 210 CLR 575.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ ibid 606–7, 640, 649.

¹²⁷ The scholarly criticism of Gutnick has largely concerned the different issue that the old rule is just inappropriate for online defamations: eg Briggs, A ‘The Duke of Brunswick and Defamation by Internet’ (2003) 119 LQR 210Google Scholar; Garnett, R ‘Dow Jones & Company v Gutnick: An Adequate Response to Transnational Internet Defamation?’ (2003) 4 Melbourne Journal of International Law 196, 212–16Google Scholar; Richardson, M and Garnett, R ‘Perils of Publicity on the Internet: Broader Implications of Dow Jones v Gutnick’ (2004) 13 Griffith Law Review 74, 90–1.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ (2002) 210 CLR 575, 606, 639–40.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Randwick Labor Club Limited v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 906, [190]Google Scholar; Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v SBS Corporation [2002] NSWSC 915, [12]Google Scholar; Jackson v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1229, [91]Google Scholar; Hewitt v ATP Tour Inc [2004] SASC 286, [73]–[77].Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Caribbean Clear Beverages Corporation Limited v Coopers & Lybrand Vancouver Limited (1998–07–03) BCSC C965097, [2].Google Scholar

¹³¹ (1995) 179 AR 81.Google Scholar

¹³² ibid [11].

¹³³ [1999] 12 WWR 408.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ ibid 422.

¹³⁵ Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 961, 963, 965Google Scholar; Roy v North American Leisure Group Inc (2004) 246 DLR (4th) 306, 307.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Blunden v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 203 ALR 189, 200, 213, 215.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Commonwealth of Australia v Stankowski; Commonwealth of Australia v May [2002] NSWCA 348Google Scholar; Burk v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] VSC 453.Google ScholarBlunden v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 203 ALR 189, 200, 213, 215 invoked federal jurisdiction, which meant there was less of a need to refer to choice of law rules.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Limitation Act 1985 (ACT).

¹³⁹ 21 Jas I c 16.

¹⁴⁰ Commonwealth of Australia v Stankowski; Commonwealth of Australia v May [2002] NSWCA 348, [33].Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ ibid [29].

¹⁴² Burk v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] VSC 453, [40].Google Scholar

¹⁴³ ibid [35]–[39].

¹⁴⁴ ibid [22].

¹⁴⁵ ibid [24]. Unfortunately, the attempt to impugn the Naval Board's decisions in the Voyager litigation brings us no closer to identifying the locus where all acts of alleged negligence occur on the high seas.

¹⁴⁶ cf Reed, (n 7) 312Google Scholar, where the impact that any Australian adoption of the 1995 Act would have had on Stevens v Head (1993) 176 CLR 433 is probably misconceived.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Morse, (n 18) 895.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ (1991) 174 CLR 1.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ (1993) 176 CLR 433Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1985 (UK) s 1(1) (a); Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1984 (UK) s 23A.

¹⁵¹ [1994] 3 SCR 1022, 1070Google Scholar; Walker (n 14) 398.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Mortensen, RPrivate International Law (Butterworths Sydney 2000) 100. See eg Choice of Law (Limitation Periods) Act 1993 (NSW), and comparable legislation in other States and Territories.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ (2000) 203 CLR 503, 542–3.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ (1991) 174 CLR 1, 22–7, 53, 62Google Scholar; (1993) 176 CLR 433, 445, 469–70.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ (2000) 203 CLR 503, 543.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ ibid 574.

¹⁵⁷ ibid.

¹⁵⁸ ibid 554.

¹⁵⁹ ibid 544.

¹⁶⁰ (2002) 210 CLR 491, 520.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ The opportunity to treat damages as a question of procedure in a foreign tort case was nevertheless not taken in Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria (2005) 221 ALR 213.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Canada: Guardian of Stoeterau v Crowsnest Air Ltd (1995) 5 BCLR (3d) 251Google Scholar; Syvertsen v Toope (1995) 5 BCLR (3d) 174, [42]Google Scholar; Perron v RJR MacDonald (1996–10–07) BCCA CA016982, [6]Google Scholar; Bakker v Adrichem [1997] 5 WWR 151, 157–8Google Scholar; Stewart v Stewart Estate (1996) 195 NBR (2d) 36, [44]Google Scholar; Stewart v Stewart (1997) 145 DLR (4th) 228, 229, 235Google Scholar; Harrington v Dow Corning Corp (1997) 29 BCLR (3d) 88, [14]Google Scholar; Hrynenko v Hrynenko (1997) 37 BCLR (3d) 35Google Scholar; Dnistransky v Homer (1997–11–06) MBCA Al 97–30–03304Google Scholar; Noël v Robichaud (1997) 193 NBR (2d) 10Google Scholar; Brill v Korpaach Estate (1997) 148 DLR (4th) 467Google Scholar; KC v College of Physical Therapists of Alberta (1998) 157 DLR (4th) 31, 36–37Google Scholar; Attorney-General of Canada v Nalleweg (1998) 165 DLR (4th) 606, 616Google Scholar; Hrynenko v Hrynenko (1998) 168 DLR (4th) 437Google Scholar; Scandsea Canada Ltd v Emberley's Transport Ltd (1999) 178 NSR (2d) 134, [12]Google Scholar; Holgate v Swimmer (1999) 46 OR (3d) 599Google Scholar; Banque Nationale de Paris (Canada) v Opiola [2000] 6 WWR 502, 507–508Google Scholar; MGL v SJL 2000 BCPC 138Google Scholar; Girsberger v Kresz (2000) 47 OR (3d) 145, [41]Google Scholar; Paulus v Banque Nationale de Paris (Canada) [2001] 6 WWR 95, 102Google Scholar; Pearson v Boliden Limited (2002) 222 DLR (4th) 453, 473–4, 485, 490–1Google Scholar; Gallant v Diocese of Labrador City-Schefferville (2001) 200 DLR (4th) 643, 650–1Google Scholar; Day v Guarantee Co of North America 2002 NSSC 12, [14], [18]Google Scholar; Desautels v Katimavik (2003) 175 OAC 201, [48], [51]Google Scholar; Caspian Construction Inc v Drake Surveys Ltd (2004) 184 Man.R. (2d) 284, [19].Google ScholarAustralia: Brear v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd (2000) 50 NSWLR 388, 396Google Scholar; Reid v AGCO Australia Ltd [2000] VSC 363, [4]Google Scholar; KBRV Resort Operations Pty Ltd v Chilcott (2001) 51 NSWLR 516, 518Google Scholar; Henry v Commonwealth [2001] NSWSC 971, [3]Google Scholar; Morris v Kriziac [2001] ACTSC 117, [4]Google Scholar; McKenzie v Commonwealth [2001] VSC 361, [54]–[57]Google Scholar; Burk v Commonwealth [2002] VSC 453, [19]Google Scholar; Commonwealth v Starkowski [2002] NSWCA 348, [28]–[29]Google Scholar; Dunn v Comalco Aluminium Limited [2002] TasSC 14, [1]Google Scholar; Bradford v Commonwealth [2002] FCA 1489, [20]Google Scholar; Wright v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWSC 800, [13]Google Scholar; Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield (2004) 7 VR 63, 90, 92, 95–6, 101Google Scholar; Pulido v RS Distribution Pty Ltd (2003) 177 FLR 401, 408Google Scholar; Air Link Pty Limited v Paterson (No 2) (2003) 58 NSWLR 388, 398, 434Google Scholar; Blunden v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 203 ALR 189, 212Google Scholar; Cultivaust Pty Ltd v Grain Pool Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 638, [273]Google Scholar; Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria (2005) 221 ALR 213, 215, 258–9, 267, 275.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Canada: Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation v Klapstein [1999] 1 WWR 355, 360Google Scholar; Deuruneft Deutsche-Russische Mineralol Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Bullen (2002) 310 AR 164, [52]Google Scholar; Castillo v Castillo (2002) 313 AR 189, [11], [32]Google Scholar; Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611, 625–6Google Scholar; Roy v North American Leisure Group Inc (2004) 246 DLR (4th) 306, 309Google Scholar; Castillo v Castillo (2004) 244 DLR (4th) 603, 609, 610–11.Google ScholarAustralia: Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2002] WASC 231, [185]Google Scholar; Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 86, [403]Google Scholar; Dyer v Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Limited [2003] NSWSC 213, [24]–[25]Google Scholar; Dyno Wesfarmers Ltd v Knuckey [2003] NSWCA 375, [37]Google Scholar; Fullford v Pearson [2004] NSWCA 150, [5]Google Scholar; Darcy v Medtel Pty Limited (No 3) [2004] FCA 807, [17]–[20].Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Reid v AGCO Australia Ltd [2000] VSC 363, [6]Google Scholar; Henry v Commonwealth [2001] NSWSC 971, [17]Google Scholar; Morris v Kriziac [2001] ACTSC 117, [4]Google Scholar; Dunn v Comalco Aluminium Limited [2002] TasSC 14, [14]Google Scholar; Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2002] WASC 231, [185], [196]Google Scholar; cf Bradford v Commonwealth [2002] FCA 1489, [71], [73]Google Scholar; Wright v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWSC 800, [21], [33]Google Scholar; Pulido v RS Distribution Pty Ltd (2003) 177 FLR 401, 409–10Google Scholar; Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria (2005) 221 ALR 213.Google ScholarCf Bakker v Adrichem [1997] 5 WWR 151, 157–8.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1984 (UK) s 23A.

¹⁶⁶ Milne v Moores [1999] ScotCS 305Google Scholar; cf Barks v CGU Insurance Plc [2004] ScotCS 241, [3].Google Scholar See also, for England and Wales, Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1985 (UK) s 7(4). Keene LJ's belief in Ennstone Building Products Limited v Stanger Limited [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 479, 491 that the Scots limitation period was procedural appears to be a misreading of s 1 (2) of the Act, which required both the English and the foreign limitation period to be treated as substantive when applying the rule in Phillips v Eyre.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ CSR Limited v Thompson (2003) 59 NSWLR 77, 79–80Google Scholar; Hobson v Queanbeyan Australian Football Club [2003] ACTSC 8, [22]Google Scholar; Routley v Bridgestone Australia Limited [2004] NSWDDT 4, [20]–[21]Google Scholar; Hoey v Martin's Stock Haulage (Scone) Pty Ltd [2003] ACTSC 41, [44].Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Simonfi v Fimmel [2000] ACTSC 54, [4]Google Scholar; Fawcett v Oliver [2000] ACTSC 70, [16]Google Scholar; Thompson v Evanoss [2000] ACTSC 73, [28]Google Scholar; El-Syoufi v Alcazar [2000] ACTSC 109, [1], [20]Google Scholar; Kalsbeek v Williams [2001] ACTSC 5, [1]Google Scholar; Moon v Moon [2001] ACTSC 17, [114]Google Scholar; Bellotti v Stair [2002] QDC 161, [3]Google Scholar; Andrews v Traynor [2003] QSC 292, [3]Google Scholar; Zardo v Ivancic (2003) 149 ACTR 1, 2–4Google Scholar; FAI Allianz Insurance Ltd v Lang [2004] NSWCA 413, [23]Google Scholar; Ivancic v Zardo [2004] ACTCA 11, [4].Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Randwick Labor Club Limited v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 906, [190]Google Scholar; Jackson v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1229, [91].Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Edmunds v Simmonds [2001] 1 WLR 1003Google Scholar; Hulse v Chambers [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812Google Scholar; Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 961.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Wong v Wei (1999) 65 BCLR (3d) 222Google Scholar; Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 961, 970–1Google Scholar; Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611, 629.Google ScholarWaller LJ admitted that, in Roerig, Pfeiffer was not referred to the Court: Harding v Wealands [2005] 1 All ER 415, 426–7, 446.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Wong v Wei (1999) 65 BCLR (3d) 222Google Scholar; Edmunds v Symonds [2001] 1 WLR 1003, 1011Google Scholar; Hulse v Chambers [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ In Hulse v Chambers [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812, 815–18Google Scholar, Holland, J cited Cope v Doherty (1858) 4 K & J 367, 384Google Scholar; Kohnke v Karger [1951] 2 KB 670Google Scholar; and Edwards v Simmonds [2001] 1 WLR 1003Google Scholar in support. In relation to the Commonwealth authorities, his Lordship recognized that Livesley v Horst & Co [1925] 1 DLR 159, 164Google Scholar was contra his position but made no reference to Stevens v Head (1993) 176 CLR 433.Google Scholar A more specious reason given in Hulse v Chambers was that, in England, the assessment of damages was technically a jury question, even if in practice a judge always answered it: [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812, 818.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ [2002] 1 All ER 961.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ [2005] 1 All ER 415.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ ibid 435–6, 447.

¹⁷⁸ Arden, LJ, 433–4, interpreted Pfeiffer's conclusions on substance and procedure as being directed by Australian constitutional considerations, which was not the case, and underestimated the extent to which Pfeiffer settled the characterization question in Australia.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ ibid 435–6.

¹⁸⁰ ibid 447.

¹⁸¹ ibid 431–2.

¹⁸² Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32, [36], [39]–[41], [48], [51].Google Scholar

¹⁸³ ibid [48], [68].

¹⁸⁴ (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ ibid 629.

¹⁸⁶ cf Craig v Allstate Insurance Co of Canada (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 103, 113Google Scholar; Brown v Flaharty (2004–12–02) ON SC30895, [9].Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Chomos v Economical Mutual Insurance Co (2002) 216 DLR (4th) 356, 368–9, 370.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Anderson, R ‘International Torts in the High Court of Australia’ (2002) 10 Torts Law Journal 132, 140–1Google Scholar; Davis, (n 43) 1014–15Google Scholar; Gray, A ‘Flexibility in Conflict of Laws Multistate Tort Cases: The Way Forward in Australia’ (2004) 23 University of Queensland Law Journal 435, 462–3Google Scholar; James, E ‘John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson: The Certainty of ‘Federal’ Choice of Law Rules for Intranational Torts: Limitations, Implications and a Few Complications’ (2001) 23 Sydney Law Review 145, 146, 163Google Scholar; Lindell (n 12) 372–3.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ (2002) 210 CLR 491, 519–20.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ ibid 535.

¹⁹¹ ibid 516.

¹⁹² Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria (2005) 221 ALR 213, 236, 255.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ [1971] AC 356.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ A Briggs ‘The Halley: Holed, but Still Afloat’ (1995) 111 LQR 18, 21.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Red Sea Insurance Co v Bouyges SA [1995] 1 AC 190Google Scholar was an appeal to the Privy Council from Hong Kong. An English trial court attempted to invoke Red Sea Insurance in Ennstone Building Products Limited v Stanger Limited [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 479, 484, 491 so as to apply Scots law alone, but this was overturned on appeal.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s 12(2): ‘The factors that may be taken into account … include, in particular, factors relating to the parties, to any of the events which constitute the tort or delict in question or to any of the circumstances or consequences of those events.’

¹⁹⁷ Private International law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s 12(1).

¹⁹⁸ Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 961, 966Google Scholar; Harding v Wealands [2005] 1 All ER 415, 425–6.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Cf Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 961, 967.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ It was also applied in Bici v Ministry of Defence [2004] EWHC 786, [2], by agreement of the parties.Google Scholar

²⁰¹ [2001] 1 WLR 1003Google Scholar; and see Anderson, (n 186) 142.Google Scholar

²⁰² [2001] 1 WLR 1003, 1010, 1011.Google Scholar

²⁰³ ibid 1011.

²⁰⁴ [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812.Google Scholar

²⁰⁵ ibid 813–14.

²⁰⁶ ibid 814–15. Damages were still assessed by reference to English awards, as Holland J found that the assessment of damages was a question of procedure: ibid 815–18. The same agreement for application of the lexfori was made in Bid v Ministry of Defence [2004] EWHC 786, [2].Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ [2002] 1 All ER 961, 967–8.Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ [2002] 1 All ER 961, 967–8.Google Scholar

²¹⁰ [2005] 1 All ER 415.Google Scholar

²¹¹ ibid 432, 440. This approach was not challenged in the appeal to the House of Lords.

²¹² ibid 423, 424–6.

²¹³ ibid 425–6.

²¹⁴ [1994] 3 SCR 1022, at 1078.Google Scholar

²¹⁵ ibid 1054.

²¹⁶ Lee v Li (2001) 53 OR (3d) 727.Google Scholar Under the rule in Phillips v Eyre, Australian courts had also invoked the flexible exception in interstate cases, despite the ban on doing so: see Woodger v Federal Capital Press Pty Ltd (1992) 107 ACTR 1, 37Google Scholar; Nalpantidis v Stark (1995) 65 SASR 454, 472–3.Google Scholar

²¹⁷ Wong v Wei (1999) 65 BCLR (3d) 222.Google Scholar

²¹⁸ cf Wong v Lee (2002) 211 DLR (4th) 69, 76–7.Google Scholar

²¹⁹ Hanlan v Sernesky (1997) 35 OR (3d) 603, 605–6Google Scholar; (1998) 38 OR (3d) 479, 480Google Scholar; Gill v Gill 2000 BCSC 870, [5], [17]–[19].Google Scholar

²²⁰ cf Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611, 625.Google Scholar

²²¹ 2000 BCSC 870.Google Scholar

²²² ibid [16]–[19].

²²³ (2002) 211 DLR (4th) 69.Google Scholar

²²⁴ ibid 75.

²²⁵ ibid 77.

²²⁶ (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611.Google Scholar

²²⁷ ibid 624.

²²⁸ ibid 625–6; see also Roy v North American Leisure Group Inc (2004) 246 DLR (4th) 306, 309–10.Google Scholar

²²⁹ cf Britton v O'Callaghan (2002) 219 DLR (4th) 300, 303Google Scholar; Roy v North American Leisure Group Inc (2004) 246 DLR (4th) 306, 309–10.Google ScholarSee also Castillo v Castillo (2002) 313 AR 189, [12], [32]Google Scholar; Soriano v Palacios (2005–06–03) ONCA C42225, [14].Google Scholar

²³⁰ The exception was applied at first instance to avoid a short limitation period in Roy v North American Leisure Group Inc (2003–12–15) ONSC 01–CV–1778, but the decision was reversed on appeal: (2004) 246 DLR (4th) 306.Google Scholar

²³¹ See PB Carter ‘The Role of Public Policy in English Private International Law’ (1993) 42 ICLQ 1.Google Scholar

²³² See Juenger, FChoice of Law and Multistate Justice (Martinus Nijhoff Dordrecht 1993) 106–9, 117–18.Google Scholar

²³³ Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s 14(3)(a)(i).

²³⁴ [1994] 3 SCR 10221054.Google Scholar

²³⁵ (2002) 211 DLR (4th) 69.Google Scholar

²³⁶ (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611.Google Scholar

²³⁷ Gill v Gill 2000 BCSC 870, [18].Google Scholar

²³⁸ Castel, (n 97) 164–5.Google Scholar

²³⁹ (2000) 203 CLR 503, 533–4.Google ScholarSee also Merwin Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Moolpa Pastoral Co Pty Ltd (1933) 48 CLR 565, 577, 587–8.Google Scholar

²⁴⁰ (2002) 210 CLR 491, 519–20, 535.Google Scholar

²⁴¹ Mortensen, (n 152) 120.Google Scholar

²⁴² 2002) 210 CLR 491, 512, 513.Google Scholar

²⁴³ Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s 9(5); eg Mattos v Macdaniels Limited [2005] EWHC 1323 (Ch), [48].Google Scholar

²⁴⁴ Collins, (n 97) 80–2Google Scholar; North, P and Fawcett, JCheshire and North's Private International Law (12th ednButterworths London 1992) 72.Google Scholar

²⁴⁵ In general, by discountiung its use in all but named property and matrimonial claims. Canada: Falconbridge, JDSelected Essays on the Conflict of Laws (2nd ednCanada Law Book Co Toronto 1954) 141–2; Castel (n 97) 115–16.Google Scholar Australia: Nygh, PConflict of Laws in Australia (6th ednButterworths Sydney 1995) 240.Google Scholar

²⁴⁶ Yezerski, R ‘Renvoi Rejected? The Meaning of ‘the Lex Loci Delicti’ After Zhang’ (2004) 26(2) Sydney Law Review 273, 282–5Google Scholar; Lu, A, ‘Ignored No More: Renvoi and International Torts in Australia’ (2005) 1 Journal of Private International Law 35, 38–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴⁷ McElroy v McAllister 1949 SC 110, 126.Google Scholar

²⁴⁸ Keyes, M ‘The Doctrine of Renvoi in International Torts: Mercantile Mutual Insurance v Neilson’ (2005) 13 Torts Law Journal 1, 10.Google Scholar

²⁴⁹ (2005) 221 ALR 213.Google Scholar

²⁵⁰ Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2002] WASC 231, [106].Google Scholar

²⁵¹ ibid [122]–[123].

²⁵² ibid [200].

²⁵³ ibid [208]. If domestic Chinese law applied, McKechnie J was prepared to exercise the Chinese power to extend the limitation period: ibid [191].

²⁵⁴ Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Neilson (2004) 28 WAR 206, at 213.Google Scholar

²⁵⁵ ibid 222.

²⁵⁶ ibid 213.

²⁵⁷ ibid 215.

²⁵⁸ ibid 215–16.

²⁵⁹ ibid.

²⁶⁰ ibid 216.

²⁶¹ ibid 220.

²⁶² Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 213, 217–18, 239, 281–2. Callinan J seemed to adopt the doctrine of single renvoi: ibid 278–9.Google Scholar

²⁶³ ibid 260.

²⁶⁴ ibid 218–19.

²⁶⁵ ibid 223–4, 266. Even if a reference by Chinese law to the lex patriae were proved, McHugh J believed that the renvoi should be ignored: ibid 229.

²⁶⁶ ibid 242–3, 275–6, 280.

²⁶⁷ Yezerski (n 246) 289–90.Google Scholar

²⁶⁸ The forum preference is also evident in the fact that the law of Western Australia, the forum, was applied as the national law, even though the defendant was a Victorian company. In Neilson, Callinan J openly preferred the use of renvoi when it led to the application of the lex fori: (2005) 221 ALR 213, 278–9.Google Scholar

²⁶⁹ Keyes, (n 248) 14–15.Google Scholar

²⁷⁰ Lu, (n 246) 64, 66–7.Google Scholar

²⁷¹ Shane v JCB Belgium NV (2003–11–14) ONSC 02–CV–19871 and Nicholls v Brisbane Slipways and Engineering Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 193 are possible exceptions, but also use principles that were current before the lex loci delicti regimes were adopted.Google Scholar

²⁷² [1999] 12 WWR 408.Google Scholar

²⁷³ [2002] WASC 231Google Scholar; (2005) 221 ALR 213.Google Scholar

²⁷⁴ Briggs (n 21).

²⁷⁵ Burk v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] VSC 453, [24].Google Scholar

²⁷⁶ Lee v Li (2001) 53 OR (3d) 727Google Scholar; Wong v Wei (1999) 65 BCLR (3d) 222Google Scholar; Hanlan v Sernesky (1997) 35 OR (3d) 603, 605–6Google Scholar; (1998) 38 OR (3d) 479, 480Google Scholar; Gill v Gill 2000 BCSC 870, [5], [17]–[19]Google Scholar; cf Wong v Lee (2002) 211 DLR (4th) 69, 76–7.Google Scholar

²⁷⁷ Edmunds v Simmonds [2001] 1 WLR 1003, 1010, 1011Google Scholar; Hulse v Chambers [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812, 813–4Google Scholar; Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 61, 967–8.Google Scholar

²⁷⁸ Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611, 629Google Scholar; Craig v Allstate Insurance Co of Canada (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 103, 113.Google Scholar

²⁷⁹ Edmunds v Simmonds [2001] 1 WLR 1003Google Scholar; Hulse v Chambers [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812Google Scholar; Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 961Google Scholar; Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32.Google Scholar

²⁸⁰ Harding v Wealands [2005] 1 All ER 415, 425–6, 435–6, 447Google Scholar; Wong v Lee (2002) 211 DLR (4th) 69, 75, 77Google Scholar; Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611, 624.Google Scholar

²⁸¹ Wong v Wei (1999) 65 BCLR (3d) 222Google Scholar; Edmunds v Simmonds [2001] 1 WLR 1003Google Scholar; Hulse v Chambers [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812.Google Scholar

²⁸² Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 961.Google Scholar

²⁸³ Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611Google Scholar; Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32.Google Scholar

²⁸⁴ Hulse v Chambers [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 812.Google Scholar These were still regarded as procedural in Harding v Wealands [2005] 1 All ER 415, 436–7Google Scholar, but cf BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 211 ALR 523, 578–9.Google Scholar

²⁸⁵ Briggs, (n 57) 522Google Scholar; Rodger, (n 14) 210Google Scholar; Harris, J ‘Choice of Law in Tort—Blending in with the Landscape of Conflict of Laws?’ (1998) 61 MLR 33.Google Scholar

²⁸⁶ Mitchell v McCulloch 1976 SLT 2.Google Scholar

²⁸⁷ cf Kincaid (n 15) 556–7, 562.Google Scholar

²⁸⁸ Somers v Fournier (2002) 214 DLR (4th) 611, 629.Google Scholar

²⁸⁹ cf BHP Billiton Ltd v Utting [2005] NSWSC 260, [8]–[9], [24]Google Scholar; BI(Contracting)Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 592, [17]–[20].Google Scholar

²⁹⁰ Flockhart v Flockhart [2002] 4 WWR 669, 678.Google Scholar

²⁹¹ KC v College of Physical Therapists of Alberta (1998) 157 DLR (4th) 31, 36.Google Scholar

²⁹² cf Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation v Kalpstein [1999] 1 WWR 355, 361.Google Scholar

²⁹³ For instance, in Guardian of Stoeterau v Crowsnest Air Ltd (1995) 5 BCLR (3d) 251, [19]–[23]Google Scholar, it was held a claim under the Saskatchewan Fatal Accidents Act 1965 could be brought in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, even though the Act, section 3(2), stated that ‘The action shall be brought in the [Saskatchewan] Court of Queen's Bench’. As a procedural law, it could be ignored by the British Columbia Court. In Pfeiffer (2000) 203 CLR 503, 548–9, Kirby J called this particular issue ‘procedural enforceability’ and suggested that the lex loci delicti's nomination of a specific tribunal to deal with the claim might mean that the forum either has no power to deal with it, or is best not to. This approach would also curb application of the lex fori. But in many cases the specification in the lex loci delicti of a tribunal to deal with the claim could be sensibly drawn as relating to the conduct of proceedings and, thus, as procedural. Stoeterau would therefore appear to be compatible with a narrow approach to procedure. However, in Voyage Company Industries v Craster (1998-08-11) BCSC C976871, [12]–[13], Harvey J did take the view that it was best that the British Columbia Court not deal with claims for oppression that had been expressly invested by the Yukon Business Corporations Act in the Supreme Court of Yukon.Google Scholar

²⁹⁴ John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, 574.Google Scholar

²⁹⁵ See Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 961, 967Google Scholar; Pulido v RS Distributions Pty Ltd (2003) 177 FLR 401, 407Google Scholar; James, (n 186) 158.Google Scholar

²⁹⁶ (2000) 203 CLR 503, 539.Google Scholar

²⁹⁷ ibid 539.

²⁹⁸ Law Com No 193 (1990)Google Scholar; Scot Law Com No 129 (1990) 10 (para 3.2).Google Scholar

²⁹⁹ Tolofson v Jensen [1994] 3 SCR 1022, 1050–1Google Scholar; John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, 540Google Scholar; Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhong (2002) 210 CLR 491, 537.Google Scholar See also PB, Carter ‘Torts in English Private International Law’ (1982) 52 BYIL 9, 10.Google Scholar

³⁰⁰ This was Mason CJ's observation in Breavington v Godleman (1988) 169 CLR 41, 78.Google Scholar