Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Cross-Border Consumer Disputes in Victoria

November 27, 2008/in /by James McComish
image_pdfimage_print

In light of Martin’s post about Jonathan Hill’s new book on Cross-Border Consumer Contracts, it’s worth noting a recent decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the main forum for small claims and consumer disputes in Victoria) that VCAT does not have jurisdiction over foreign persons or companies because the VCAT Act does not permit service outside the jurisdiction: Apollo Marble and Granite Imports Pty Ltd v Industry + Commerce (Civil Claims) [2008] VCAT 2298 (14 November 2008).

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 James McComish https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png James McComish2008-11-27 11:43:182008-11-27 11:43:18Cross-Border Consumer Disputes in Victoria

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
Link to: Article on choice of law for intra-Australian torts after the civil liability legislation Link to: Article on choice of law for intra-Australian torts after the civil liability legislation Article on choice of law for intra-Australian torts after the civil liability... Link to: Spanish homosexual couple and surrogate pregnancy Link to: Spanish homosexual couple and surrogate pregnancy Spanish homosexual couple and surrogate pregnancy
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top