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
3rd Postgraduate Law Conference at the Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance
The 3rd Postgraduate Law Conference of the Centre for Private International Law is now open for registration.
The theme is “New Dimensions in Private International Law” and the conference will take place online on 6 June 2025 in the morning. Topics include commercial, family and maritime law, as well as law in the digital age and sustainability and corporate responsibility.
Enforceability Denied! When the SICC’s Authority Stopped at India’s Gate
Written by Tarasha Gupta, BALLB (Hons), Jindal Global Law School, and Saloni Khanderia, Professor, Jindal Global Law School (India)
The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) has become a preferred hub for hearing litigation and arbitration of international commercial disputes. Accordingly, many decisions from the SICC require recognition and enforcement in India.
In this light, a recent judgment from the Delhi High Court (“HC”) is a significant development providing relief to those wishing to enforce the SICC’s judgments in India. In Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd v. Parmod Kumar & Anr,[1] the HC has held that the SICC is a superior court under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). As a result, its judgments can be directly executed in India. That said, the HC ultimately held the judgment in question to be unenforceable, as it failed to meet the tests in Section 13 of the CPC.
This article breaks down the arguments and legal context behind the HC’s judgment. It also highlights how the case demonstrates flaws in India’s regime, which create difficulties not just for creditors trying to enforce foreign judgments in India, but also in enforcing India’s judgments abroad. Read more
AAPrIL’s June online seminar: The Law of the Arbitration Agreement – Australasian Perspectives
On Wednesday, 11 June 2025, the Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL) will hold its latest instalment of its online Seminar Series, as Timothy Lindsay of Lindsay Francis & Mangan presents on ‘The Law of the Arbitration Agreement – Australasian Perspectives’.
The topic:
Contracts with international arbitration agreements can engage a complex interaction of different laws: the governing law of the contract, the law of the seat, and the law of the arbitration agreement itself. Parties to international commercial contracts usually address the first two of these issues, but are often silent as to the law of the arbitration agreement. A light has recently shone on this well-known issue by the United Kingdom’s Arbitration Act 2025, which includes a new default rule for determining the law of the arbitration agreement, and similar changes to the Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, as well as developing case law in other jurisdictions. How might Australian and New Zealand courts react? Read more