Views
Australia’s statutist orthodoxy: High Court confirms the extraterritorial scope of the Australian Consumer Law in the Ruby Princess COVID-cruise case
The Ruby Princess will be remembered by many Australians with disdain as the floating petri dish that kicked off the spread of COVID-19 in Australia. The ship departed Sydney on 8 March 2020, then returned early on 19 March 2020 after an outbreak. Many passengers became sick. Some died. According to the BBC, the ship was ultimately linked to at least 900 infections and 28 deaths.
The jurisdictional hurdles of s 26 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth), in the context of interim anti-enforcement relief in aid of New Zealand proceedings
The New Zealand High Court recently granted a permanent anti-enforcement injunction in relation to a default judgment from Kentucky in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Limited [2023] NZHC 3260. The plaintiff, a British Virgin Islands company, claimed that the defendants had committed a tortious conspiracy against it because the Kentucky default judgment was based on fabricated claims intended to defraud it. The defendants were a New Zealand company, Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (WFTL), and persons associated with the company.
In an undefended judgment, the High Court granted the injunction, awarded damages for the costs incurred in the foreign proceedings (referring to cases such as Union Discount Co Ltd v Zoller [2001] EWCA Civ 1755, [2002] 1 WLR 1517 by analogy), and issued a declaration that the Kentucky judgment would not be recognised or enforceable in New Zealand. As noted previously on this blog (see here), the case is an interesting example of “the fraud exception to the principles of comity” (Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley (No 2) [2023] QSC 215 at [192]).
Second Act in Dutch TikTok class action on privacy violation: court assesses Third Party Funding Agreements
Written by Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht University) & Jos Hoevenaars (Erasmus University Rotterdam), members of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.
Introduction
Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) has been one of the key topics of discussion in European civil litigation over the past years, and has been the topic of earlier posts on this forum. Especially in the international practice of collective actions, TPLF has gained popularity for its ability to provide the financial means needed for these typically complex and very costly procedures. The Netherlands is a jurisdiction generally considered one of the frontrunners in having a well-developed framework for collective actions and settlements, particularly since the Mass Damage Settlement in Collective Actions Act (WAMCA) became applicable on 1 January 2020 (see also our earlier blogpost). A recent report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security found that most collective actions seeking damages brought under the (WAMCA) have an international dimension, and that all of these claims for damages are brought with the help of TPLF.
News
Announcement – Save the Date: Online Workshop on Cross-Border Protection of Cultural Property
Chinese Journal of Transnational Law will hold an online workshop on Cross-Border Protection of Cultural Property on 28 Feb 2025. All are welcome to attend. A Zoom link will be provided closer to the event.
Tentative Programme
Keynote Speakers
•Prof. Christa Roodt, University of Glasgow
•Prof. Zhengxin Huo, China University of Political Science and Law
Speakers and Presentations
•Restitution of Cultural Objects Unethically Acquired During the Colonial Era: The Intersection of Public and Private International Law
Andreas Giorgallis (PGR), University of Glasgow
•The Contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the Cross-Border Protection of Indigenous Cultural Heritage
Eleni Moustaira, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
•From Freedom to Restitution (With Special Focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone Community)
Miroslaw Michal Sadowski, University of Strathclyde
•Restitution of Cultural Property in China: In Search of a New Paradigm for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims
Ruida Chen, China University of Political Science and Law
•Forfeiture and Freezing Orders in Trans-border Cultural Property Litigation
Maggie Fleming Cacot
•Restitution of Stolen Foreign Cultural Property and Hurdles in Choice of Law
Yehya Badr, Yamamah University
•The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Türkiye
Ekin Hacibekiroglu, Kadir Has University
•Evolving Models of Restitution
Evelien Campfens, University of Amsterdam
•Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland
Andrzej Jakubowski, Instytut Nauk Prawnych, Polska Akademia Nauk,
We invite those interested in this important discussion to mark their calendars. More information will be provided soon.
Happy New Year from ConflictofLaws.net (now also on Bluesky)!
The editors of ConflictofLaws.net would like to wish you a year filled with happiness, health, and success, academically and otherwise.
2024 has been another great year for the blog, with close to one new post per day (bringing us to more than 5,500 posts in total) and record numbers of readers and subscribers. Our content, just like our readership, reflects the global scope of the blog, with popular posts including Saloni Khanderia & Shubh Jaiswal’s article on the application of the lex fori ‘by default’ in Indian courts, Mayela Celis’ note on Smith & Wesson v Mexico, Orji A Uka & Damilola Alabi’s contribution on service under Nigerian law, Yasmín Aguada & Laura Martina Jeifetz two-part piece on international judicial cooperation and technology in private international law, and Tobias Lutzi’s comment on the CJEU’s decision in Real Madrid.
In addition to our e-mail newsletter (which continues to be surprisingly popular), you can subscribe to our blog on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and – from this year on – Bluesky.
The FAMIMOVE project ends today – A summary of its achievements
Today (31-December 2024), FAMIMOVE 2.0. is coming to an end after having accomplished all of its goals and created a solid network of experts. The project’s full name is Families on the Move: The Coordination between international family law and migration law and is an international project co-funded by the European Commission under the JUST-2022-JCOO program. For more information, click here.
The project aimed to improve the protection of migrant children and families by bringing actual practice more in line with EU goals and values, such as the protection of fundamental rights and best interests of the child. It sought to provide more effectiveness to EU objectives through a better coordination of instruments in overlapping fields, such as Regulations in private international law in family law matters and migration law rules.