Views
Clearly Inappropriate Down Under: Isaacman v King [No 2] and the Outer Limits of Long-Arm Jurisdiction
By Dr Sarah McKibbin, University of Southern Queensland
The Supreme Court of New South Wales’ decision in Isaacman v King [No 2][1] is the kind of case that tempts one to say ‘nothing to see here’, and yet it richly rewards a closer look. On a conventional application of Voth v Manildra Flour Mills[2] — the leading Australian authority on forum non conveniens — Garling J stayed proceedings that attempted to litigate a New York relationship dispute in Sydney, being ‘well satisfied’ that the NSW Supreme Court was a clearly inappropriate forum.[3] The reasons, though brief by design,[4] illuminate the transaction costs of jurisdictional overreach,[5] show how the Voth framework handles an extreme set of facts, and offer a careful case study for empirical debates about Australian ‘parochialism’ in jurisdictional decision-making. Read more
Indonesian Constitutional Court on International Child Abduction
THE INDONESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION REAFFIRMED PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE
By: Priskila Pratita Penasthika[1]
INTRODUCTION
The Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision Number 140/PUU-XXI/2023, issued on 3 September 2024, confirms that parental child abduction is a criminal offence under Article 330(1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code. Prior to this Decision, Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code was understood as a provision that could not criminalise someone for child abduction if the abduction was committed by one of the biological parents.
After 3 September 2024, through this Constitutional Court Decision, the abduction of a child by one of the biological parents, when the parent does not have custody based on a final court decision, is reaffirmed as a criminal offence. Read more
The 2025 International Arbitration Survey: The Path Forward
“The 2025 International Arbitration Survey: The Path Forward”
Luke Nottage (University of Sydney)
The 14th Queen Mary University of London Survey, again in collaboration with international law firm White & Case, was dissected at an Australian launch seminar (expertly moderated by partner Lee Carroll) at their Melbourne office on 22 July 2025. Some “early insights” had been provided during Paris Arbitration Weeks, when the Survey report was not yet public. This analysis delves deeper into the report and key findings, drawing also on the discussion with our co-panellists, including some suggestions for future research.
News
JKU Linz: Tenure-Track Position for European and International Civil Procedure Law
Johannes Kepler University Linz is currently advertising a tenure-track professorship in “European and International Civil Procedure Law”.
Out Now: Checa Martínez, Instituciones de estate planning y Derecho internacional privado patrimonial (Marcial Pons 2026)
Miguel Checa Martínez (Kinship Law) has kindly shared the following summary of his latest publication on ‘Instituciones de estate planning y Derecho internacional privado patrimonial’ with us.
First Issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2026
The first issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2026 was recently published last month. It contains the following works on private international law:
Bulat Karimov, “Arrest of Associated Ships from a Common Law Perspective”
The Arrest Conventions 1952 and 1999 provide for the arrest of ships owned by the person who would be liable for the claim in personam. The widespread use of one-ship companies has effectively circumvented these provisions. It has allowed shipowners to limit or avoid their liability by distributing their fleet between one-ship companies. The only country that has introduced separate associated ship provisions is South Africa. Other countries do not follow this example and generally deal with one-ship companies through beneficial ownership and piercing the corporate veil. The article examines the law and practice of arresting associated ships in South Africa, the US , England, Singapore and Australia. Particular focus is paid to the impropriety criterion, which is part of piercing the corporate veil but is irrelevant to the South African approach. It is concluded that the primary function of impropriety is preventing overreaching, which means subversion of the idea of separate legal personality of a shipowning company. The “objective” and “reasonableness” approaches are suggested as a middle ground to the problem discussed.
This article considers remedies leading to compelling satisfaction of a judgment, from assets in a wealth structure used by a judgment debtor, or assets produced by them, or from persons who have received such assets. These include (1) enforcement by equitable execution, (2) enforcement disregarding “sham” or invalid trusts or through an undisclosed legal power, (3) the effect of the Model Form of Freezing Injunction, and (4) use of the Insolvency Act 1986, s.423 to unwind transactions prejudicing creditors, including when to attribute to others a debtor’s purpose to prejudice creditors. It considers the relevance of a person having legal or de facto control of assets to the availability of these remedies.
Adrian Briggs, “The Death of Henry v Geoprosco“
Michal Hain, “Is a Foreign Judgment a Debt?”
Joseph Khaw, “Going Cherry Picking”
Paul MacMahon, “Pre-emptive Challenges to Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards”