The Sydney Centre for International Law is a holding a conference entitled "Facing Outwards: Australian Private International Law in the 21st Century" on Wednesday, 10 April 2013. A conference flyer may be found here
. For further information and registration, click here
The conference description is as follows:
The nation’s prosperity depends not only on the willingness of its businesses to export goods and services, and of its citizens and residents to travel to take advantage of opportunities overseas, but also on the willingness of the businesses and citizens of other nations (in particular in the Asia-Pacific region) to come to Australia to do business. Economic expansion, and parallel increases in tourism and immigration, have brought Australians into more frequent contact with the laws and legal systems of other nations. At the same time, the legal systems of Australia are faced with a growing number of disputes involving foreign facts and parties. Against this background, the Attorney-General’s current review of Australian private international law is timely and calls for debate as to the best way forward in terms of policy and substantive rule making. This conference, jointly organised by Sydney and Griffith Law Schools, brings together experts from Australia, New Zealand, Asia and Europe to consider the recent and future development of the law in this area.
The line up of speakers includes Roger Wilkins AO, Secretary of the Attorney General’s Department; Adeline Chong, Singapore Management University; Yujun Guo, Wuhan University; Elsabe Schoeman, University of Auckland; Andrew Dickinson, Sydney Law School; Michael J Hartmann, Asia-Pacific Regional Office of The Hague and formerly Justice of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong; Mary Keyes, Griffith Law School; Thomas John, Attorney General’s Department; Richard Garnett, Melbourne Law School; Andrew S Bell SC, Eleven Wentworth Chambers; Reid Mortensen, University of Sthn Queensland; and David Goddard QC, Thorndon Chambers (Wellington).
The keynote address is to be given by the Honourable James Allsop AO, Chief Justice, Federal Court of Australia, formerly President, NSW Court of Appeal.
The latest title in the Oxford Private International Law Series has just been published: Substance and Procedure in Private International Law by Professor Richard Garnett
The OUP abstract reads:
When the law of a foreign country is selected or pleaded by a claimant or defendant, a question arises as to whether the issue pertains to substance, in which case it may be resolved by foreign law, or procedure, in which case it will be governed by the law of forum. This book examines the distinction between substance and procedure questions in private international law, and analyses where and whether each is appropriate. To do so, it examines previous attempts to define the scope of procedure in private international law, considers alternative choice of law methods for referring matters to the law of forum, and examines the influence of the doctrine of characterization on procedure.
Substance and Procedure in Private International Law also provides detailed analysis of the decisional law in which the substance-procedure distinction has been employed, creating a clear assessment of its application in various practical situations and providing valuable guidance for practitioners on how the distinction should be applied. The book also considers 'procedural' topics such as service of process and the taking of evidence abroad, in order to show how the application of forum law may further be limited by foreign laws.
- Examines the rules governing substance and procedure in private international law to provide a clear and precise delimitation of their function
- Outlines the procedural classification and its importance as a tool within forum law
- Discusses important areas of legal doctrine, such as damages, evidence, and statutes of limitation, to demonstrate the distinctions used
- Provides practical guidance on how the substance-procedure distinction might be applied in future cases
As introductory topics, the book covers the origins, rationale and definition of the substance and procedure distinction, and characterisation, alternative methods of forum reference and harmonization. It then considers specific areas which raise the substance/procedure distinction: service and jurisdiction; parties to litigation; judicial administration; evidence, both general principles and specific issues concerning taking evidence abroad and privilege; statutes of limitation; and remedies, dealing with general principles, non-monetary relief, statutory restrictions, and damages and statutory compensation.
Throughout, the book refers to cases from a variety of jurisdictions, including England, the EU, the USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia. It is comprehensive in scope, exhaustively researched and clearly written. The book will be of great assistance to any practitioner in the private international law field but is also an academic work of the highest quality. As Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, concludes in his forward to the book:
This work is not just an admirable statement of the law as it currently stands; it identifies and engages with deeper underlying issues and offers persuasive solutions to them. In addition, it presents a penetrating analysis of the existing rules and the decided cases.
The first chapter is available for free download here
The High Court has recently granted special leave to appeal
from the decision of the Full Court of Federal Court in PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission  FCAFC 52
; (2011) 192 FCR 393; 277 ALR 67, on which James McComish has previously posted
. The case concerns the applicability of foreign state immunity to government-owned airlines in the context of civil proceedings for breach of competition laws.
It is appropriate to note on this blog the recent retirement of J J Spigelman as Chief Justice of New South Wales
. A number of his judgments and speeches over the course of his tenure as Chief Justice constitute significant contributions to Australian private international law.
hey are identified in his chapter entitled 'Between the Parochial and the Cosmopolitan' in the recently published collection Constituting Law: Legal Argument and Social Values (Federation Press, 2011)
edited by Justin Gleeson and Ruth Higgins. That chapter also provides an overview of the former Chief Justice's views on the approach of the judiciary to the foreign elements that arise in cases, including cross-border issues, venue disputation, enforcement of judgments, judicial co-operation and determining questions of foreign law. The chapter is based on a speech given by the former Chief Justice in June 2010, the text of which may be found here
Concluding the Australian article round-up, readers may be interested in the following articles raising points about international co-operation on conflicts issues:
- Rosehana Amin, 'International Jurisdiction Agreements and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Australian Litigation: Is There a Need for the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements?' (2010) 17 Australian International Law Journal 113
One of the difficulties faced by judges and practitioners when dealing with disputes arising from international commercial transactions is in the application and enforcement of a choice of court or foreign jurisdiction clause to determine the relevant court to adjudicate the dispute. This article explores the process undertaken by Australian courts when deciding whether they should exercise jurisdiction. In addition, the legal uncertainty arising from the distinction drawn between exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, and the ambiguous approach employed in the enforcement of a jurisdiction clause is considered. The Hague Conference on Private International Law has developed the Hague Convention on Choice of Courts Agreement 2005 and it is intended to promote the enforceability of exclusive choice of court agreements and establish the international recognition and enforcement of resulting judgments. This article considers whether Australia should, like its American and European counterparts, take steps to sign and ratify the Hague Convention. Further, the article also assesses the impact the Convention will have in resolving jurisdictional issues faced by Australian courts and the recognition and enforcement of a resulting decision. Finally, the article posits that the Hague Convention will clarify the uncertainties facing Australian courts in international jurisdictional disputes.
- Gina Elliott and David Hughes, 'Australia joins the Hague Service Convention' (2010) 84 Australian Law Journal 532:
The Hague Service Convention will come into force for Australia on 1 November 2010. The Convention presently has 61 states parties, and is the most important multilateral convention in the field of transnational services of process. This article sets out the main features of the Convention, including when it applies, the manner in which the Convention will interact with Australian law, and the methods provided by the Convention for the transmission of documents for service abroad. The article also discusses foreign case law that has developed in connection with key issues that arise under the Convention.
Continuing the Australian article round-up, readers may be interested in the following article and recently published book raising points about conflicts within the Australian federation:
- Geoffrey Lindell and Sir Anthony Mason, 'The Resolution of Inconsistent State and Territory Legislatoin' (2010) 38 Federal Law Review 391:
[W]e have chosen to discuss an important aspect of the subject [of federalism] which has become even more important since the High Court recognised that State legislation is capable of operating beyond the territorial limits of the enacting State. That aspect is how conflicts are resolved between overlapping State and Territory civil and criminal legislation which is capable of operating beyond the territorial limits of the enacting State or Territory. Our aim is to identify the principles which govern, or should govern, the resolution of such conflicts. As will appear, the governing principles which we favour are as follows:
(1) a State (or Territory, if authorised by the Australian Parliament) can, subject to some limitations, legislate with extraterritorial effect in another State (or Territory); primacy will be accorded, in a case of direct or indirect inconsistency, to the law of the State (or Territory) legislature which has competence to legislate in the geographical area in which the law of the former State (or Territory) purports to operate (our 'main solution');
(2) the closer connection test suggested in Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen's Association Inc v South Australia ('closer connection test') applies only where the same inconsistency arises with respect to legislation which seeks to operate outside the geographical area of both the jurisdictions mentioned in the first principle, for example Australian offshore areas; and
(3) principles (1) and (2) only operate in the absence of uniform choice of law rules prescribed by federal legislation which displaces them.
An important feature in all legal systems, but especially in federations whose polities have overlapping legislative powers, is that those laws regularly conflict – or at least are claimed to conflict. Any coherent legal system must have principles for resolving such conflicts. Those principles are of immense practical as well as theoretical importance. This book, which straddles constitutional law and statutory interpretation, describes and analyses those principles.
This book does not merely address the conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws resolved by the Constitution (although it does that and in detail). It analyses the resolution of all of the conflicts of laws that occur in the Australian legal system: conflicts between laws enacted by the same Parliament and indeed within the same statute, conflicts between Commonwealth, State, Territory, Imperial laws and delegated legislation.
After identifying the laws in force in Australia, the chapters deal with:
- conflicts in laws made by the same legislature, focussing on the interpretative process of statutory construction;
- repugnancy, a doctrine with continuing vitality in the areas of s79 of the Judiciary Act, delegated legislation and Territory laws;
- conflicts between laws of the Commonwealth and State laws, proposing that the categories of inconsistency (commonly three: direct, indirect and 'covering the field') are best seen aspects of a single constitutional concept;
- conflicts between the laws of two States, and
- conflicts involving the laws of the self-governing Territories.
Continuing the Australian article round-up, readers may be interested in the following two articles raising points about arbitration:
- Andrew Bell, 'Dispute Resolution and Applicable Law Clauses in International Sports Arbitration' (2010) 84 Australian Law Journal 116:
Choice of law clauses and jurisdiction or arbitration agreements play a critical role in international commerce. They also play an increasingly important role in sporting disputes by reason of the ever-growing internationalisation and commercialisation of sport. The presence of such clauses does not, however, guarantee the elimination of interlocutory or adjectival contests concerning the law which will govern, and the forum or mode of dispute resolution that will apply, to the determination of an international sporting dispute. This article examines standard sports-related choice of law clauses and arbitration agreements, and considers the emerging jurisprudence in this field.
- Geoffrey Fisher, 'Anti-Suit Injunctions to Restrain Foreign Proceedings in Breach of an Arbitration Agreement' (2010) 22 Bond Law Review 1:
The anti-suit injunction is the remedial device available in common law systems to restrain a party from instituting or continuing with proceedings in a foreign court. ... [A] recognised category for the issue of an anti-suit injunction is where a plaintiff has commenced proceedings in a foreign court in breach of a contractual promise, for example, in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or an arbitration agreement. In this type of case there is a tension between the interests of comity on the one hand and the policy of upholding contractual undertakings on the other. The English Court of Appeal in Aggeliki Charis Campania Maritima SpA v Pagnan SpA (The Angelic Grace) can be regarded as having inaugurated a more liberal approach to the jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining breach of an arbitration agreement. The tension between comity and contractual bargain was largely resolved in favour of the latter. This paper examines the nature and extent of the liberalisation worked by The Angelic Grace and subsequent English decisions.
Continuing the Australian article round-up, readers may be interested in the following three articles raising points about finance:
- Anthea Markstein, 'The Law Governing Letters of Credit' (2010) 16 Auckland University Law Review 138:
Letters of credit are frequently used to effect payment in commercial transactions where parties are resident in different jurisdictions. While it seems prudent for parties to give careful consideration to the governing law of these contracts, in reality, letters of credit generally make no provision for a governing law. ... In attempting to find a governing law in keeping with the commercial expectations of the parties, the courts have endeavoured to apply the same law to all the contracts in the letter of credit transaction (with the exception of the underlying contract). ... This article argues that finding a governing law that provides legal certainty and has a close connection to the contract is vital in determining a governing law in the absence of choice in the letter of credit context. Achieving consistency in the governing law across all the contracts, however, is only important where commercial expectations require this outcome. This article suggests that commercial expectations do not require this outcome in the context of freely negotiable letters of credit, and sets out three alternative methods for determining the governing law of a freely negotiable letter of credit. Finding a consistent method with which to determine the governing law of a letter of credit contract is of particular importance given that it is likely to have implications for tortious and restitutionary claims arising in connection with a letter of credit contract.
- David Chaikin, 'A Critical Examination of How Contract Law is Used by Financial Institutions Operating in Multiple Jurisdictions' (2010) 34 Melbourne University Law Review 34:
Financial institutions operating in multiple jurisdictions are vulnerable to extraterritorial jurisdictional claims, especially under United States anti-money laundering and economic sanctions laws. A survey shows that banks licensed in Australia have revised their standard form contracts so as to reduce the risks arising from the extraterritorial enforcement of foreign laws. Under the new contracts, customers have purportedly consented ex ante to banks supplying confidential information directly to foreign states and agreed to the freezing of their bank accounts based on a possible breach of foreign law. The contractual provisions are controversial because they circumvent the legal procedures that would otherwise apply in cases of international criminal, civil or regulatory assistance. The legal efficacy and policy implications of the contractual terms are analysed.
- The Honourable J J Spigelman AC, 'The Global Financial Crisis and Australian Courts' (2010) 84 Australian Law Journal 615:
Nearly two years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the effects of the global financial crisis are increasingly discernible in Australian courts. In this speech, Chief Justice Spigelman surveys the range of legal proceedings that have accompanied recent corporate collapses. The litigation discussed is characterised by its complexity, which is partly a consequence of the highly leveraged and interlocked nature of failed companies and investment schemes, and by the significance of cross-border issues. With respect to the latter, the crisis has highlighted the need for cross border judicial co-operation.
Continuing the Australian article round-up, readers may be interested in the following three articles raising points about insolvency:
- Stewart Maiden, 'A comparative analysis of the use of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency in Australia, Great Britain and the United States' (2010) 18 Insolvency Law Journal 63:
UNCITRAL’s Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency has been adopted by parliaments in 18 states across six continents. Each separate implementation departs from the archetype for various reasons, principally the necessity to tailor the Model Law to fit domestic law and policy. Model Law Art 8 requires courts to have regard to the international origin of the Model Law and the desirability of uniformity when interpreting local enactments of the Model Law. However, the nuances of the foreign texts, and differences between the suites of insolvency laws of which the texts form part, mean that a study of the text and context of any foreign implementation is required before its impact on the operation of the local enactment can properly be considered. For those reasons, this article compares the implementation of the Model Law in Australia, Great Britain and the United States. It also attempts to assist the reader to understand how courts in each of the three states are likely to deal with problems presented under the Model Law.
- Lindsay Powers, 'Cross-Border Insolvency: The Austrailan Approach to Ascertaining COMI' (2011) 22 Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 64:
The Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (Cross-Border Act) brought to Australia the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The spirit of the Model Law is cooperation with, and recognition of, foreign insolvency representatives. Australian courts can grant recognition even if the country of the foreign insolvency representative has not adopted the Model Law. That said, the process of recognition is not simply a “rubber stamp”. A court in Australia hearing the application for recognition must be satisfied that all the preconditions are satisfied and, if they are, what relief should be granted. From the relatively few decided cases under the Cross-Border Act, it is clear that the approach of Australian courts is accommodating, but cautious. In the recent decision Ackers v Saad Investments Co Ltd, the Federal Court undertook a careful examination of what needs to be established to satisfy one of the central concepts of the Model Law: the location of an insolvent company’s “centre of main interests” (COMI).
- Lionel Meehan, 'Cross Border Insolvency Law: Reform and Recent Developments in Light of the JAL Corporate Reorganisation Filing' (2011) 22 Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 40:
Japan Airlines Corporation and certain subsidiaries (together, JAL) filed for corporate reorganisation under the Japanese Corporate Reorganisation Law on 19 January 2010. JAL’s filing presents an opportunity for the insolvency community to learn more about both the Japanese Corporate Reorganisation Law and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency (Model Law). The JAL case has generated recognition of JAL’s corporate reorganisation proceedings as “foreign main proceedings” in the United States under the American implementation of the Model Law in Ch 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code, in the United Kingdom under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, in Australia under the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth), and in Canada under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36.
Readers may be interested in a range of articles which have been published since the last Australian article round-up in 2010
. Over the coming days, I will post abstracts for the articles roughly grouped into themes. Today's is a general theme.
- John Fogarty, 'Peter Edward Nygh AM: His Work and Times' (2010) 1 Family Law Review 4:
In this article the author outlines and honours the work and life of Peter Edward Nygh AM. From his early life in western Europe, through his relocation to Australia and to his subsequent contributions in academia, the Family Court of Australia and the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the article honours Peter Nygh’s success as an academic, judge, reformer and internationalist, and his life as an honourable and decent man.
- Mary Keyes, 'Substance and Procedure in Multistate Tort Litigation' (2010) 18 Torts Law Journal 201:
Where a tort occurred outside the territory of the forum state, the Australian tort choice of law rule requires that the forum court must apply the law of the place where the tort occurred to resolve the dispute. Several exceptions to this principle are recognised, according to which the forum court may apply forum law instead of the otherwise applicable foreign law. This article considers these exceptions, focusing on the distinction between matters of substance, which may be governed by foreign law, and matters of procedure, which are always governed by forum law. The justifications for the separate treatment of procedural rules are critically examined. This article suggests that most of those justifications are weak and that, when taken together with the other exceptions that permit a forum court to apply its own law, they show that the Australian choice of law rule for multistate torts remains in need of further refinement.
- Kate Lewins, 'Australian Cruise Passengers Travel in Legal Equivalent of Steerage --- Considering the Merits of a Passenger Liability Regime for Australia' (2010) 38 Australian Business Law Review 127:
Two Australian passengers contact their travel agent on the same day. Each books a cruise of similar duration, embarking at an Australian port for a Pacific cruise, on a different cruise ship line. One contract claims to be governed by United States law, with any claim to be brought in Florida within one year, and a limit on liability of about A$80,000 for personal injury or death claims. The second, (the lucky one), boards a ship with a contract governed by Australian law, allowing commencement in an Australian court within two years. Any legal recovery for injury or death sustained on the cruise is already fraught with complexity. But the variation between cruise ship liner’s passenger contracts for voyages departing Australia can be significant. This article argues that the time has come for Australia to introduce a regime for the liability for passengers carried by sea from or to Australian ports.
- Guan Siew Teo, 'Choice of Law in Forum Non Conveniens Analysis: Puttick v Tenon Ltd  HCA 54' (2010) 22 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 440:
The overlap between questions of jurisdiction and choice of law is perhaps most visible when applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens: it is now generally accepted that the lex causae is indicative of where the natural forum is. But as the facts and holding of the decision of the High Court of Australia in Puttick v Tenon Ltd suggest, some issues remain which warrant careful treatment when considerations of the applicable law enter the jurisdictional analysis. Such difficulties relate to uncertainties on the threshold of proof, as well as the interaction between the forum non conveniens inquiry and procedural rules on pleading and proof of foreign law.
- Rachel Joseph, 'Enabling the Operation of Religious Legal Systems in Australia by Extending Private International Law Principles' (2011) 85 Australian Law Journal 105:
The current failure to recognise and accommodate religious law outside an arbitration context has led to informal religious dispute resolution processes that often lack protections (such as natural justice) which are inherent in Australia’s secular legal system. This article proposes recognising and accommodating religious law through an expansion of common law principles of private international law. It argues that enabling the use of religious law outside an arbitration context would discourage the use of informal religious dispute resolution processes and enable Australia’s secular legal system to reassert control over all legal issues, including matters involving religious significance, by ensuring that the operation of religious law is governed by, and subject to, secular laws.