Posted on behalf of Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.
It’s rare for conflict of laws to come up in South African courts (with the notable exception of the Turkcell litigation from earlier this year; see the summary on this site at https://conflictoflaws.net/2025/south-africa-grapples-with-the-act-of-state-doctrine-and-choice-of-law-in-delict/).
In Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines (7/11/2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1665), the Supreme Court of the Netherlands considered the interpretation of a so-called ‘Paramount clause’ in a bill of lading. Such clauses commonly signpost which rules govern the international carriage of goods by sea. The Court addressed such clause as a choice of law and held that article 3(1) of the Rome I Regulation does not preclude the parties from agreeing on such clause. Read more
On 21 August 2025, the UNSW School of Private and Commercial Law, the Journal of Equity and Allens jointly hosted the 2025 Journal of Equity Conference. This year’s one-day Conference focused on important questions at the intersection of equity, trusts and private international law. It featured four papers delivered by judges and scholars, each of which was followed by ample time for insightful questions and discussion among over 30 judges, lawyers and scholars attending the office of Allens in (rainy) Sydney.
Case Citation:
Sqimnga (Nig.) Ltd v. Systems Applications Products (Nig.) Ltd [2025] 2 NWLR 423 (Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Nigeria)
The dispute in this case arose between two Nigerian companies, Sqimnga Nigeria Ltd (the appellant) and Systems Applications Products Nigeria Ltd (the respondent). Both parties had entered into a Master Service Agreement in Nigeria, relating specifically to software solutions. A critical provision of this agreement stipulated that the laws of South Africa would govern any disputes, and further, that South African courts would possess exclusive jurisdiction to hear any matters arising from the agreement.
When a disagreement emerged between the parties, Sqimnga Nigeria Ltd initiated legal proceedings at the Lagos State High Court. The respondent immediately contested the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, relying on the contractual clause mandating the use of South African law and courts. Read more
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
A recent study by the Law Commission of England and Wales has resulted in proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996 that include a default rule that an arbitration agreement will be governed by the law of England and Wales if the arbitration is seated in that territory. Given the importance of London as an arbitration center, this has implications for many international commercial contracts.
In his new article, Professor Ron Brand from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law challenges the premise behind the proposed amendment that there is a single “law of the arbitration agreement.” Instead, he demonstrates that there are multiple laws applicable to an arbitration agreement. He explains this multiplicity of applicable laws by considering the possible grounds for challenge of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal based on the arbitration agreement. Such an analysis demonstrates that very different laws may apply to questions of the existence, formal validity, substantive validity, scope, and exclusivity of an arbitration agreement. He reviews these issues in the broader context of choice of forum clauses generally, including both arbitration and choice of court agreements, and then considers a hypothetical international commercial transaction in which questions might arise about the first four of these five jurisdictional questions – demonstrating both the problems with the idea of a single “law of the arbitration agreement,” as well as the practical impact and importance of well-drafted choice of forum agreements, including provisions on choice of law. Although prompted by the proposed change in English law, this discussion has implications for the law in every jurisdiction regarding agreements to arbitrate, indicating that both transaction planners and dispute resolution lawyers need to be cognizant of the laws applicable to arbitration and choice of court agreements.
The article is available here.
The thirty-eighth annual survey on choice of law in the American courts is now available on SSRN. The survey covers significant cases decided in 2024 on choice of law, party autonomy, extraterritoriality, international human rights, foreign sovereign immunity, adjudicative jurisdiction, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
This annual survey was admirably maintained by Symeon Symeonides for three decades. The present authors are pleased to have extended this tradition.
By Dr Benjamin Hayward
Associate Professor, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash Business School
X: @LawGuyPI, @MonashITICL
On 7 August 2024, the High Court of Australia handed down its long-awaited decision in Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 24. The dispute arose out of a domestic commercial arbitration seated in South Australia, where the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (SA) is the relevant lex arbitri. That Act is a domestically focused adaptation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (with its 2006 amendments).
The respondent to the arbitration sought to rely upon proportionate liability legislation found in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA) and in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The High Court was asked to determine whether those proportionate liability regimes could be applied in the arbitration. A very practical difficulty arose here, reflected in Steward J noting (in dissent) that the High Court was ‘faced with an invidious choice’: see [228]. Were the proportionate liability laws not to apply in the arbitration, the respondent might find themselves liable for 100% of the applicant’s loss, when they would not be liable to that same extent in court proceedings applying the same body of South Australian law. But were the proportionate liability laws to apply, the applicant might find themselves able to recover only a portion of their loss in the arbitration, and might then have to then pursue court proceedings against another third party wrongdoer to recover the rest: given that joinder is not possible in arbitration without consent. Read more
According to the doctrine of privity of contract, only parties to a choice of court agreement are subject to the rights and obligations arising from it. However, there are exceptions to the privity doctrine where a third party may be bound by or derive benefit from a choice of court agreement, even if it did not expressly agree to the clause. A choice of court agreement in a bill of lading which is agreed by the carrier and shipper and transferred to a consignee, or third-party holder is a ubiquitous example. Read more
Way out west, where the rain don’t fall
There’s a treaty for the sale of goods that’s good news for all
But you might not know it’s here
Unless you’re livin’ and a workin’ on the land …
In 2009, Associate Professor Lisa Spagnolo observed – based upon her census of Australia’s CISG case law at that time – that the Convention was effectively ‘in the Australian legal outback’. For those unfamiliar with Australia’s geography, most of its population is concentrated on the continent’s eastern coast. Australia’s outback extends, amongst other places, across much of Western Australia. With that geographic imagery in mind, one might not be surprised to hear that a recent decision of the County Court of Victoria – in Australia’s east – overlooked the Vienna Sales Convention’s application.
The circumstances in which this omission occurred are interesting, and provide a useful opportunity for Australian practitioners to learn more about the CISG’s application in Australia.
The case at issue is last year’s C P Aquaculture (India) Pvt Ltd v Aqua Star Pty Ltd [2023] VCC 2134. That case involved a sale of goods dispute (concerning prawn and shrimp) between Australian and Indian parties. Whilst the CISG has been part of Australian law since 1989, it is a well-known fact that India is not a CISG Contracting State. It is perhaps this well-known fact – taken at face value – that led the County Court of Victoria to overlook the CISG’s application.
The C P Aquaculture judgment indicates that ‘[t]he parties are agreed that the proper law of the contracts between CP (India) and Aqua Star for the sale of shrimp or prawns is Victorian law’. As recorded in the judgment, this followed from the plaintiff’s view that ‘India has not adopted the convention on contracts for the international sale of goods’, and from the defendant’s view that there was a ‘failure on the part of either part[y] to allege and prove the terms of any other law as a proper law’.
On either view, however, there is actually a very good basis for applying the CISG, rather than non-harmonised Victorian law. This case therefore represents an excellent opportunity for Australian lawyers to better understand how and why the CISG applies in Australia.
Taking the plaintiff’s position first, the fact that India has not adopted the CISG is actually not fatal to the Convention’s application. In fact, the Convention specifically provides for its application in those exact circumstances. This follows from Art. 1(1) CISG, the treaty’s key application provision:
This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States:
(a) when the States are Contracting States; or
(b) when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State.
Where – as in C P Aquaculture – it is not the case that both parties are from Contracting States, the CISG cannot apply by virtue of Art. 1(1)(a) CISG. But it can still apply pursuant to Art. 1(1)(b) CISG. The key here is whether ‘the rules of private international law’ call for the application of a Contracting State’s law.
In an informal discussion I once had with a leading Australian barrister, I was asked ‘what does “the rules of private international law” here actually mean?’ It may be that uncertainty over the meaning of this phrase contributes to the CISG’s application being overlooked in cases like C P Aquaculture. In short, private international law rules include choice of law rules (where a sales contract is governed by a CISG State’s law because of a choice of law clause) and conflict of laws rules (where, absent party choice of law, the forum’s rules indicate that a CISG State’s law is to apply). In a way, Art. 1(1)(b) CISG might have been more easily understood by non-specialists if it read ‘when a Contracting State’s law is the governing law’. Although it doesn’t read this way, that is essentially the provision’s effect, and understanding Art. 1(1)(b) CISG accordingly may better help Australian practitioners identify cases requiring the treaty’s application.
Taking the defendant’s position second, where the law of an Australian jurisdiction governs, it is actually not necessary to ‘allege and prove’ the CISG’s terms because the CISG – despite its abstract existence as a treaty – is not foreign law. Roder Zelt-Und Hallenkonstruktionen GmbH v Rosedown Park Pty Ltd – Australia’s first ever case applying the CISG – confirmed this by explaining that the CISG is ‘part of’ Australian law and is thus ‘not to be treated as a foreign law which requires proof as a fact’.
Indeed, the Goods Act 1958 (Vic) – a statute that the defendant itself sought to rely upon in C P Aquaculture – is the very vehicle giving effect to the CISG in Victoria, via its pt IV.
All this being said, C P Aquaculture provides Australian practitioners (and lawyers representing Australian traders’ counterparts) with some useful lessons in understanding how and why the CISG applies. If the CISG really is still in the Australian legal outback, then perhaps what Australian practitioners need is a good understanding of the lay of the land. And to that end, private international law can be their map.
Dr Benjamin Hayward
Associate Professor, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash Business School
X (Twitter): @LawGuyPI
International Trade and International Commercial Law research group: @MonashITICL