1

PrivateInternationalLawA

TableofContents

INTRODUCTION 4(A)CENTRALQUESTIONS 4(B)SOURCES 4(C)CONCEPTS 5(D)STAREDECISIS 6

PERSONALJURISDICTION 8(A)COMMONLAW 8(I)TERRITORIALJURISDICTIONBASEDONDEFENDANT’SPRESENCE 8(B)JURISDICTIONBASEDONDEFENDANT’SSUBMISSION 13(C)SERVICEELSEWHEREINAUSTRALIA 16(D)SERVICEINNZ 17(E)SERVICEOUTSIDETHEAUSTRALIANJURISDICTION 18(I)GENERALLY 18(II)CONTRACT 22(III)TORT 24(F)DISCRETIONARYNON-EXERCISEOFJURISDICTION 28(I)EXCLUSIVEFOREIGNJURISDICTIONCLAUSES 29(II)INTERNATIONALCASES(OVERSEASFORUM)–“CLEARLYINAPPROPRIATEFORUM” 43(III)INTRA-AUSTRALIACASES–“INTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE,THESECONDCOURTISMOREAPPROPRIATE” 55(IV)TRANS-TASMANPROCEEDINGS 57(G)ANTI-SUITINJUNCTIONS 58(I)FOREIGNPROCEEDINGSUNCONSCIONABLE,OPPRESSIVEORVEXATIOUS“FORTHEPURPOSESOFEQUITY”;REMEDIESUNAVAILABLEINTHEFORUM 60(II)BREACHOFLEGALOREQUITABLERIGHT;COMITY;ANTI-ANTI-SUITINJUNCTIONS 63(III)TRANS-TASMANPROCEEDINGS 64(III)INTRANATIONALPROCEEDINGS 64

GENERALAPPLICABLELAWTOPICS–CHOICEOFLAWMETHODOLOGYANDISSUES 66(A)TERMINOLOGY,STRUCTUREANDAPPROACH 66(I)METHOD 66(II)CHARACTERISATION 67(III)RENVOI–MEANS‘REMIT’OR‘SENDBACK’ 70(IV)THE“INCIDENTALQUESTION” 72(V)FORUMSTATUTESANDTHECONFLICTOFLAWS 73(B)PROPERLAWANDTHELEXIFORI–SUBSTANCEANDPROCEDURE 76(I)RATIONALEOFTHEDISTINCTIONANDDEVELOPMENTINAUSTRALIA 77(II)CHARACTERISATIONBYLEXIFORI 79(III)LIMITATIONANDPRESCRIPTIONOFACTIONS 80(IV)KINDSORHEADSOFDAMAGE/AMOUNTORQUANTIFICATIONOFDAMAGESASSUBSTANTIVEISSUES 83

THELAWAPPLICABLETOTORTS 84(A)HISTORICALBACKGROUND 84(I)THETRADITIONALRULEINPHILLIPSVEYRE 84(II)A“FLEXIBLEEXCEPTION”TOTHERULEINPHILLIPSVEYRE? 86(III)TORTSCOMMITTEDWITHINTHEFORUM–FORUMLAW(LEXFORI)APPLIES 87

2

(B)MODERNAUSTRALIANLAW 88(I)INTRANATIONALTORTS 88(II)INTERNATIONALTORTS 89(III)LOCATINGTHEPLACEOFTHETORT(LOCUSDELICTI) 89(IV)OVERRIDINGFORUMSTATUTES 92(V)FOREIGNCOMPENSATIONSCHEMES 96(VI)CONCURRENTLIABILITYINTORTANDCONTRACT 97(VII)RENVOI 100(C)ACOMPARISONWITHOTHERJURISDICTIONS 101(D)MARITIMEANDAERIALTORTS 101(I)MARITIMETORTS 101(D)EQUITABLEANDOTHERNON-CONTRACTUALOBLIGATIONS 105

THELAWAPPLICABLETOCONTRACTS 107(A)IDENTIFICATIONOFTHEAPPLICABLELAW 107(I)EXPRESSCHOICEOFLAWLIMITATIONS 108(II)INFERREDCHOICE 110(III)PROMISSORYCHARACTEROFCHOICEOFLAWPROVISION? 112(IV)OBJECTIVEPROPERLAW–‘THESYSTEMOFLAWWITHWHICHTHETRANSACTIONHASITSCLOSESTANDMOSTREALCONNECTION’ 112(V)OVERRIDINGSTATUTES/MANDATORYLAWS 116(VI)RENVOI? 119(B)CAPACITY 120(C)FORMATION 122(I)CONSENT–OFFERANDACCEPTANCE 122(II)CONSIDERATION–WHETHERANECESSARYELEMENTOFABINDINGCONTRACT–GOVERNEDBYPROPERLAW 124(III)FORMALVALIDITY 125(D)ILLEGALITYANDFOREIGNPUBLICPOLICY 126(I)FORUMPUBLICPOLICY 126(II)ILLEGALITY–THERESPECTIVEROLESOFTHEPROPERLAW,LEXFORIANDLAWOFTHEPLACEOFPERFORMANCE 127(III)FOREIGNPUBLICPOLICYANDINTERNATIONALCOMITY 129(E)PERFORMANCE,VARIATIONANDDISCHARGE 130

FOREIGNLAW 133(A)INTRODUCTIONANDASCERTAINMENTOFFOREIGNLAW 133(I)FOREIGNLAWASFACT? 133(II)PRESUMPTIONOFSIMILARITY–ROLEOFEXPERTEVIDENCE? 134(III)MODEOFPROOF–WHOISACOMPETENTWITNESS? 136(IV)ALTERNATIVEMETHODSOFPROOF 137(V)INTERSTATEANDTRANS-TASMANLAW 139(B)EXCLUSIONOFFOREIGNLAW 140(I)FOREIGNPENALANDREVENUELAWS 140(III)AUSTRALIANCOURTSWILLNOTENFORCETHE“GOVERNMENTINTERESTS”OFFOREIGNSTATES 144(III)FORUMPUBLICPOLICY 145(IV)CONSTITUTIONALANDFEDERALCONSIDERATIONS(FULLFAITHANDCREDIT) 147

FOREIGNJUDGEMENTS 148(A)ENFORCEMENTATCOMMONLAW 148(I)JURISDICTIONINTHEINTERNATIONALSENSE 148(II)FINALANDCONCLUSIVE 153(III)FIXED(DEFINITE)SUMOFMONEY? 153(+)IDENTITYOFTHEPARTIES 155

3

(IV)DEFENCES 155(B)ENFORCEMENTINEQUITY 163(C)STATUTORYREGISTRATIONOFFOREIGNJUDGEMENTS 163(I)RELATIONSHIPB/WTHESTATUTEANDTHECL 167(II)REGISTRATIONPROCEDURE 167(III)EFFECTOFREGISTRATION 167(IV)FOREIGNJUDGMENTSTOWHICHTHESTATUTE(PART2–“RECIPROCALENFORCEMENTOFJUDGMENTS”)APPLIES 167(V)SETTINGASIDEFOREIGNJUDGEMENTS–STAYS 168(VI)STAYOFENFORCEMENTUNDERS8 168(VII)RECOGNITIONOFTHECONCLUSIVENESSOFFOREIGNJUDGEMENTS 169(VIII)REGISTRATIONPROCEDURE 169(D)NZJUDGEMENTS 169(I)ENFORCEMENTOFNZJUDGEMENTSEXCLUSIVELYBYREGISTRATION 169(II)SETTINGASIDEREGISTRATION–PUBLICPOLICY 169(III)NOTICEOFREGISTRATIONANDEFFECTOFREGISTRATION 170(IV)STAYOFENFORCEMENTPROCEEDINGSPENDINGAPPEALBYJUDGEMENTDEBTORINNZ 170(V)NON-APPLICATIONFCLRULESOFPRIVATEINTERNATIONALLAW 170(E)ENFORCEMENTOFJUDGEMENTSWITHINAUSTRALIA 170(I)A“SIMPLEANDSTRAIGHTFORWARD”REGISTRATIONSCHEME 170(II)NON-APPLICATIONOFCLRULESOFPIL 171(F)INTERNATIONALARBITRATION/INT’LARBITRALAWARDS 171(I)STATUTORYENFORCEMENT 171(II)SETTINGASIDE–PUBLICPOLICY 171

EXAMOUTLINE 173-218

4

Introduction(A)Centralquestions

• Doesthecourthavejurisdiction,overwhatissue,overwhom?• Willthecourttakejurisdiction?• If there is an arbitration clause, will the court refuse to take jurisdiction based on that

arbitrationclause?• Enforcingjudgements–mustgoundertherulesoftheparticularnationinwhichtheclaimis

beingbrought• Inacommercialcontext,wherearetheassets?• Enforcementofarbitraryawards

Casestudy–JV,buildingtollroadinChina

• WouldbegovernedbyChinesecorporatelaw,operationofthecompany• Investors, British Virgin Islands company (owned by a Saudi company and Taiwanese

investor) – based there to avoid the operation of HK and Chinese law, as well as taximplications(I.e.taxneutral)

• Taiwaneseinvestor–canusewhateverlawhelikes• Chinesepartnerontheotherside–ownedbythelocalgovernment• Noalternativeapplies–havetoapplyChineselawtothesino-foreignjointventurecontract• NewYorklawappliestoshareholderagreements–whyhasthislawbeenoptedfor?

o Wantapredictableresulto Strongandconsistentstandardoflaw

• CanwegoaftertheassetsinAustralia?o GetjudgementinNewYorkandenforceitinAustralia–weenforceUSjudgementsall

thetime• Canwegoafterthelocalgovernment?

o WouldhavetodosointheChinesejurisdictiono Issueofimmunityo Can’tgetthem,butifwedid,wouldhavetogoaftertheminChina

(B)Sources

• “…isthebodyofprinciples,rulesand,attimes,policiesthatindicatehowaforeignelementinalegalproblemordisputeshouldbedealtwith”

• Adivisionofprivateordomesticlaw• Concernedwithonelegalsystem’streatmentofexternalfactsandlegalsystems• Differentfromonejurisdictiontoanother,I.e.mayhavedifferentanswersonPILquestions

dependingonthecourtwherethecaseisbrought

5

(C)Concepts

• “Country”or“area”forpurposeofresolvingconflictsbetweenlegalsystems:o StatesofAustraliao TerritoriesofAustraliao CommonwealthofAustralia

• ThereisonlyoneCLinAustralia–HCAhasmadeclearthereisonlyone,eventhoughSC’shavecomeupwithdifferentresultsfordifferentareasofthelaw

• ButlegislationmayvaryOceanicSunLineSpecialShippingvFay[1988]HCA32

• Factso DrFabianFay,aQueenslandresident,madeabookinginNewSouthWalesthrougha

NewSouthWales travel agent, JMATours, for a cruise in theGreek Islands on the‘Stella Oceanis’, a vessel owned by a Greek company, Oceanic Sun Line SpecialShippingCo

o Dr Faywas given an ‘exchange order’ by JMATourswhich stated that itwould beexchanged fora ticketwhenhearrived inGreece; that ticketcontainedacondition(clause13)thatthecourtsofGreeceshouldhaveexclusivejurisdictioninanyactionagainstOceanic,andalsothatitshouldbegovernedbyGreeklaw

o The legaldisputearosewhenDrFaywasseverely injuredwhile takingpart intrapshootingonboardthevessel

o DrFayconsequentlybroughtacauseofaction innegligenceagainstOceanicSun intheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales,seekingdamagesforhisinjuries

• Heldo The exclusive jurisdiction clause was not incorporated into the contract, being

formedinNewSouthWales–anditwasunknowntoDrFayandnoattemptsweremadetobringittohisattention

o Here,theNSWSCwasclearlynona‘clearlyinappropriateforum’• Isitaproceduralmatter?

o Ifwe’reworkingoutwhetheritisatermoftheK(I.e.wasthenoliabilityclausepartoftheK),thenitwouldbethelawoftheforum,I.e.NSW

VentervIlonaMYLtd[2012]NSWSC1029

• Factso ChristianVenter,aSouthAfricanengineeronthe‘Ilona’,wascrushedtodeathatsea

when a hatch cover malfunctioned and collapsed on top of him (probably whilecruisingoffcoastofThailan)

6

o The‘Ilona’wasownedbycompaniesregisteredinJerseyandNewSouthWales,butitselfwasregisteredinAustralia

o Venter’s American wife brought a cause of action in negligence and under theCompensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW) for the death of her husband, seekingdamagesforherdepression

o Mrs Venter settled her claim with the shipowners (about where the accidentoccurred),butinseekingcontributionasajointtortfeasor,theshipownersjoinedasa cross-defendant themanufacturer of the hatch cover,MDEngineering, a Germancompany

o MD Engineering sought to stay the proceedings in the NSWSC on the basis of theexistence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause for all claims to be heard in Bochum,Germany,initscontractwiththeshipowners,andfurtherthat:

§ Thecross-defendant,MDEngineering,wasaGermancompany;§ TheemployeesofMDEngineeringwereGerman;§ ThelawofthecontractwasexpressedtobeGermanlaw;and§ Thedesign,manufactureandinstallationofthehatchcoverwascarriedoutin

Germany• Issue

o Isthereanexclusivejurisdictionclause,andifso,doestheNSWSChavetogiveeffecttothat?No,itdoesnot

• Heldo Owners’crossclaimwasstayedo Therewereno strongcountervailing reasons for itbeing inappropriate tohold the

parties of the shipowners andMDEngineering to their bargain (but itwould havebeendifferent if thedisputebetweenMrsVenterandtheshipownershadnotbeensettled) – the exclusive jurisdiction clause was upheld and the proceedings werepermanentlystayed

• Noteo MrsVentersettledherclaim,sotherewasnooutstandingproceedingsinNSW

(D)Staredecisis

• PILincludesbothlegislationandcommonlaw• Onecommonlaw–therefore,viewofHCAdefinitiveandnoneedtoexamineauthoritiesof

intermediateappellatecourts• IfnoHCAdecision,whataboutacourtnot in thedirect lineofauthority, I.e. intermediate

appellatecourts,inanotherjurisdiction?o Intermediate appellate courts and trial judges in Australia should not depart from

decisionsinintermediateappellatecourtsinanotherjurisdictionontheinterpretationofCthlegislationoruniformnationalunlesstheyareconvincedthattheinterpretationis plainly wrong…since there is a common law of Australia rather than of each

7

Australian jurisdiction, the same principle applies in relation to non-statutory law(FarahConstructionsvSay-DeeP/L[2007]HCA22,at[134])

Overseasjudgement

• CookvCook(1986)162CLR376–“subject,perhaps,tothespecialpositionofdecisionsoftheHouseofLordsgivenintheperiodinwhichappeals layfromthiscountrytothePrivyCouncil, the precedents of other legal systems are not binding and are useful only to thedegreeofthepersuasivenessoftheirreasoning”(perMason,Wilson,Deane&DawsonJJat[19])

• Relevanceofnon-bindingoverseasauthoritywherenobriningauthority(UnionShippingNZLtdvMorgan[2002]NSWCA124)

o PersuasivereasoningreferredtoinCookappliestoreasoningaboutcommonlaw,notstatutoryinstruction

8

PersonaljurisdictionThresholdquestion

• (1)Doesthecourthavejurisdiction?o Lookatwhichcourt,dependingonthesubjectmatterofthecase,E.g.DustDiseases

Tribunalforasbestos,SupremeCourtforsubstantialdamageclaims• (2)Doesthecourthavejurisdictiontodeterminethecross-borderdispute?

o Lawoftheforum?I.e.lexfori,itmustlooktoitsownrulesnottherulesoftheplacetheactionoccurred

o Note–notnecessarilythesameas“jurisdictionintheinternationalsense”(relevantforrecognisingthejurisdictionofforeigncourts)

Scopeofjurisdiction

• Doesthecourthavepowertodeterminethecase?o Yes,providedtheDispresentorsubmitstojurisdictionormaybeservedinterstate

oroverseasWhatisjurisdiction?

• ‘Jurisdictionmaybeused(i)todescribetheamenabilityofadefendanttothecourt’swritandthegeographicalreachofthatwrit,or(ii)ratherdifferently,toidentifythesubject-matterofthoseactionsentertainedbyaparticularcourt,or,finally(iii)tolocateaparticularterritorialor“lawarea”[…]or“lawdistrict”’

• Inrem–relatedtothings,E.g.AdmiraltyCourt–ships• Inpersonam–concernedwiththeD’spresenceinthejurisdiction

Shouldthecourtexerciseitsjurisdictionordeclinetoexercise?

• I.e.stayproceedings(discretionaryelement)?• Yes,unlessthecourtisa“clearlyinappropriateforum”(forumnonconveniens),forexample:

o Thepartieshavecontractuallychosenanotherforumo Thelackoffactorsconnectingthecourttothedisputeo Anothercourtisalreadyhearing(orhasdetermined)thedisputeo Anothercourthasorderedthepartiesnottoproceedhere(anti-suitinjunction)

(A)Commonlaw(i)Territorialjurisdictionbasedondefendant’spresenceIndividualsGospervSawyer(1985)160CLR548

• Facts

9

o DisputebetweenVictoriantrusteesforShellanditsNSWemployeeMrSawyeraboutemployeepensionfunds

o MrSawyer injuredandmaderedundantbutarguedthatpensionpaymentwas lessthanhehadcontributedindexedforinflationandwasunfair

o AppealfromtheNSWIRC• Held

o Since the effective assertion of jurisdiction is confined by the limits of the actualjurisdiction,acourt’spowertoissueprocessinanactioninpersonam,isprimafacieexercisableonlyagainstthosepresentwithinthelimitsofitsterritoryatwhateverbetherelevanttimeortimes

o NSW IRC didn’t have authority to order serve process out of NSW to VictoriantrusteesortoaltertermsofVictorianpension

o MrSawyer’sclaimfailed• Mason&DeaneJJ

o “Thegeneraldoctrineof thecommon law is that, in theabsenceofasubmissiontothejurisdictionbyadefendant,civiljurisdictionisterritorial,thatistosay,relatedtotheterritoryofwhosesystemofgovernmenttheparticularcourtformspart”

o “Since the effective assertion of jurisdiction is confined by the limits of actualjurisdiction, a court's power to issue process in an action in personam, where thedefendant does not submit to the jurisdiction and where questions of status orsuccession are not involved, is prima facie exercisable only against those presentwithinthelimitsofitsterritoryatwhateverbetherelevanttimeortimes...”

Basicrule

• Ifwritisissued,andDnotinjurisdiction,thenthereisnojurisdiction.But,ifyouknowthewrit is coming, and deliberately leave the jurisdiction, does the court have jurisdiction?(ShakyratiosinLaurie,Joye–wouldhavetomakeitclearonthefacts)

IfleavethejurisdictionLaurievCarroll(1958)160CLR548

• Factso Involved a contractual dispute between Laurie, a theatrical agent in London, and

Carroll, a theatrical entrepreneur in Melbourne, over profits arising from DameMargotFonteyn’s1957Australiantour

o Lauriewas inVictoriabetween11and13June1957forDameMargot’sMelbourneperformances,andthentravelledtoSydney

o ThewritintheactionissuedoutoftheVSCon14Juneo Lauriehadbeen involved innegotiations to settle thedispute, andwas aware that

Carrollmightsueo HeleftAustraliaon20June,withouteverhavingbeenservedwiththewrit

10

o Carroll appliedon21 June for anorder allowing substituted service of thewrit onLaurie’ssolicitorsinMelbourne

o HerringCJmade the order, but Laurie successfully appealed to theHC to have theordersetaside

• Issueo DidtheVictoriancasehavejurisdictiontomaketheorder?

• Heldo No,itdidnoto “The defendant must be amenable or answerable to the command and writ. His

amenability depended and still primarily depends upon nothing but his presencewithinthejurisdiction”(perDixonCJ,Williams&WebbJJ)

• Noteo ThisispriortotheSEPAo Mere transientpresence inanairport loungeby thedefendantat the timeofwrite

issuance with no knowledge of writ or intention to evade service would not besufficient to entitle order for substituted service against person; but leave aftersummons issued in knowledge it was on foot but before being served led tosubstitutedserviceorder(JoyevSheahan(1996)62FCR417)

o CanonlyissuesubstitutedserviceifservicecouldhavebeenservedpersonallyJoyevSheahan(1996)62FCR417

• Factso 1November 1994, Sheahan applied to FCA for order that Joye attend examination

aboutcompanyaffairso 25November,Courtmadeordero JoyewasstillinOzo 9December,Joye’ssolicitorsservedwithsummonso 13December,Joyedepartedjurisdictiono 2Feb1995–SheahansoughtorderforsubstitutedserviceonJ

• Heldo Ifdefendantknewservicewascomingandleftjurisdictiontoavoidservice,thecourt

can order substituted service to satisfy personal jurisdiction...but if the defendantleavesjurisdictionafterwritissuedandbeforeservice,notknowingoftheexistenceofthewrit,thenthecourtwillnothavejurisdiction

TemporarilyluredintojurisdictionHRHMaharaneeofBarodavWildenstein[1972]2QB283

• Factso Disputeastoauthenticityofartworko BothpartiesresidentinFrancebutbothconnectedto,andhadresidencesinUK

11

o ExpertswereUKSotherby’sandChristie’so MaharaneeservedonMrWildensteinatAscotwhenhepoppedinbrieflyforahorse

race• Held

o “Shewasdoingnomore thanour lawpermits,even though itmayhaveruinedhisday at the races. Somemight regardher action as bad form; none can legitimatelycondemnitasanabuseoflegalprocess…”(perDaviesLJ)

TransientpresenceisenoughforserviceunlesscoercionPerrettvRobinson[1985]1QdR83

• Factso The plaintiff, Mr Perrett, was injured in a motor vehicle collision on the Stuart

Highway in the Northern Territory, due to the negligence of the defendant, MrRobinson,whowasdrivingacarregisteredinQueensland

o Although the plaintiff and the defendantwere residents of theNorthern Territory,theplaintiffrequestedthedefendanttowillinglytraveltoQueenslandtobeserved,wheretheplaintiffwouldbeentitledtohigherdamagesthantheNorthernTerritory

o Thedefendantwillinglycompliedwiththeplaintiff’srequest,becausehisinsurer,FAIInsurance,wouldultimatelypaythedamagesanyway

o ButFAIInsurance,joinedtotheaction,arguedthattheSupremeCourtofQueenslanddidnothavejurisdiction,astheplaintiffanddefendanthadconspiredtodefraudit

• Heldo Fraudulently luring someone to jurisdiction is not OK but D agreeing to go to

jurisdiction for service when insurer would end up paying the claim is NOTfraudulent

o TherecouldbenofraudwheretheDhasenteredintothejurisdiction‘willinglyandknowinglyforthepurposeofbeingsoserved(perMcPhersonJ)

Personalservice

• UCPRr10.20–Personalserviceonlyrequiredincertaincircumstances• UCPRr10.21–Howpersonalserviceeffectedgenerally

o Dropitattheirfeetandsay‘thisisanoriginatingprocess’o Leaveannearaspracticabletothatperson(ratherthanriskphysicalviolence)

Substitutedservice

• UCPRr10.14–Substitutedandinformalservicegenerally

o “Substituted”meansinsteadofpersonalservice(I.e.samejurisdictionalscope)–donotconfusewithserviceoutsidethejurisdiction(extensionofjurisdictionalscope)

12

CorporationsSteps

• (1)IsitanAustraliacorporation?o SeeCorporationsAct–thenitispresent

• (2)Isitaregisteredcorporation?o Thenitispresent

• (3)Isitanunregisteredforeigncorporation?o GothroughtheWinbourneindicia

NationalCommercialBankvWimborne(1979)11NSWLR156

• Factso TherelevantissuewaswhetherNCB,acorporationestablishedunderSaudiArabian

law,waspresent/carryingonbusiness inNSWand, on that account, subject to thecommon law jurisdictionof theSupremeCourtofNSWinproceedings forabuseoflegalprocessbyNCBinSwitzerland

o SaudiArabianbankhadnoassets,nobranch,noagencyorplaceofbusinessinNSWo ButafewtimesusedSydneyBankcollectingproceedsofbillsofexchangefromNSW

importersandremittingproceedstoNCBinSA• Held(perHollandJ)

o NCBnotpresentinjurisdiction,soclaimoughtbestruckouto “Additionally, Holland J has said that presence in Australia is not established by

showingthattheforeigncorporationhasappointedalocalsolicitortocommenceordefend particular legal proceedings within the jurisdiction” (Sunland Waterfront(BVI)Ltd&AnorvPrudentiaInvestmentsPtyLtd&Ors(No2)[2012]VSC239)

o Identifies three criteria that tend to establish that a company is carrying on abusinessintheforum–theseare:

§ (1) The company is represented by an agent who has authority to makebinding contracts with persons in the place – goes back to question ofagency;

§ (2)Thebusinessisconductedatsomefixedanddefiniteplaceintheforum;or§ (3)Thebusinesshasbeenconductedintheforumforasufficientlysubstantial

period• Note

o In practice, most cases rely on legislative provisions enabling service out ofjurisdictiontoclaimjurisdictionoverforeigncorporationswhichhavetheirspecifictestsandrequirements

o Thereisnojurisdictionoveracompanywhichterminates itsbusiness intheforumbefore being served with initiating process in the action (Queensland v PropertyNomineesPtyLtd(1982)6ACLR739)

13

IssuereagentAdam’svCapeIndustries[1990]Ch433

• Factso UKcompanythatminedasbestoswhoshippedtoTexas,whichwasthensoldono EmployeesinTexasgotsickfromasbestoso UKcompanytriedtoarguedtherewasno jurisdictionforthecasetobebrought in

Texaso ClassactioninTexaso Hadnooffices,registrationoremployeesintheUSo Argument of the class actionwas that itwas carrying on business through the US

subsidiary• UKcourt

o ConsideringjurisdictionoftheTexascourto Hadtoshowthesubsidiarywasactingasanagent

• Heldo Appliedtheagenttestfromcorporationslaw

§ Carryingonbusiness;diditreimburse?paycostsofthebusiness?§ Degreeofcontrol;what’sontheletterhead§ Powertodirect§ Ifseparatelyincorporatedcompany,havetoshowthereisastrongdegreeof

controlIfanAustraliancorporation

• IncorporatedundertheCorporationsAct,andwillberegisteredunderASIC–don’tneedtoprovepresencewithinthejurisdiction

• ServiceandExecutionProcessAct1992(Cth)o ss, 9, 15 – even if the company is registered in a different state or territory to the

forum itwill still be amenable to the initiatingprocessof forumcourts serviced inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheAct

(B)Jurisdictionbasedondefendant’ssubmissionSubmissionbyagreement

• UCPR10.6–Serviceinaccordancewithagreementbetweenparties• UCPR10.13–Acceptanceofservicebysolicitor• UCPR11.2–Casesforservingoforiginatingprocess

Generally

14

• Thedefendantmaybetakentohavesubmittedtothejurisdictionwhere–

o Theyagreedtoallowthesubstantiveclaimtobeheard;o WheretheD’slawyermadeoralsubmissionsonthemeritso WheretheDcounterclaimedonagroundrelatedtotheO’sclaim;o WheretheDconsentedtointerlocutoryordersinthecause;o WheretheDarguedagainst theextensionof the limitationperiodapplicabletothe

claim;o WheretheDproducesdocumentsinresponsetoasubpoena;oro WheretheDappliedforanorderforsecurityforcosts

Avoluntarysubmission?VertzyasvSingaporeAirlines(2000)50NSWLR1

• Factso ThePwasinjuredduringaflighttoSydneyfromAthenso TheP’sclaimagainstthedefendantforpersonalinjurywasgovernedbytheWarsaw

Conventionwhichaddressedthequestionofjurisdictionandprovidedthatanactionfor damages for personal injury by a passenger against an air carrier must bebrought,attheplaintiff’soption,inoneofseveralplaces:

§ (1)Theplacewhere theaircarrier isordinarilyresidentorhas itsprincipleplaceofbusiness;

§ (2)Theplacewheretheaircarrierhasanestablishmentbywhichthecontractofcarriagewasmade;or

§ (3)Theplaceof(ultimate)destinationo NSWdidnotfitwithinthesecategorieso InresponsetotheP’sstatementofclaimintheSCofNSW,theD’ssolicitors fileda

noticeofgroundofdefencewhichcontendedthatthecourthadnojurisdiction(andalso challenged the plaintiff’s claim that the cause of the plaintiff’s injury was theplaneplummetingandthatshesuffered‘bodilyinjury’)

o HadalsosentlettertoP’ssolicitorsaskingthePtoattendamedicalexamination• Held

o Airline had submitted to jurisdiction – it had contested jurisdiction and alsosubstantiveelementsoftheclaim

o Conductinconsistentwithaprotestagainstjurisdiction§ Takingpositivestepsintheaction,E.g.allowingsubstantiveclaimtobeheld,

makingsubmissionsonmerits,consentingtointerlocutoryorder• Howhadtheairlinesubmitted?

o Contestedjurisdiction,butinordertosavetimeonajurisdictionalpoint,theystartedaskingformedicalexaminationsandfurtherandbetterparticulars

NationalCommercialBankvWimborne(1979)11NSWLR156

15

• Held

o Submittal to jurisdiction, I.e. below were not enough to constitute a waiver ofjurisdiction

• Why?o Noobjectionstoproceduralorderso Noobjectionstoreferencetopossiblecross-claimplusgrantofextensionoftimeto

filecross-claimo Failuretoformallyobject

HowardvNBNZ[2002]FCA1257

• Factso ServedfromQueenslandonNZbankwithoutleaveunderOrder8(oldFederalCourt

rules)o Bank’ssolicitorsacceptedserviceo DinstructedthesolicitorinNZtoaccepttheinitiatingprocess

• Heldo Therewassufficientservice,andsojurisdictionenlivened

SubmissionbyappearanceGarsecvHisMajestytheSultanofBrunei(2008)NSWCA211

• Factso GarsecclaimedthatSultanverballyagreed,throughrepresentatives,tobuytinygold

linedQuran,wortharound$10million,forthirdwifeo Anissuearoseastowhetherthemattersthatwerebeingallegedareactuallygoingto

beprovedattrialo Gsuedforspecificperformanceofanoralcontractordamageso Ultimatelyonappeal,NSWCAheldNSWwas inappropriate forum(I.e.didnothave

jurisdictionoverSultanofBrunei)o Pspleaded inoriginalstatementofclaimallegationsthatcontractwasgovernedby

NSWLaw,partlybecausemadeinNSWo Dsenterednoticeofappearance(I.e.intendstodefendaction)o Pthenwithdrewandamendedstatementofclaim(becauseevidencedidnotsupport

thatcontractwasmadeinNSW–Sultan’srepnoteveninNSWondatealleged)o Ddidnot immediatelyseek leave towithdraw(as lawyerhadadvised),whenPre-

pleadedo Instead, the next day after service, they filed a notice of motion for summary

dismissal that did not raise any issue as to jurisdiction (if the D had, after the Pwithdrewthefirststatementofclaim,saidthattheywouldwithdrawtheirnoticeofappearance,thenthecourtprobablywouldn’thavehadjurisdictionovertheSultan

16

• Heldo TheDs failure towithdrawnoticeof appearance in response to thePwithdrawing

thefirststatementofclaimconstitutedavoluntarysubmission• Reasons

o D’senterednoticeofappearance,thentooknostepstoprotectposition=submissionàtoolate,hadsubmittedtothejurisdictionofthecourt

o Sultanhadimmunityrelatingtosubstantive,notproceduralelementso Shouldthedefendantsbegivenleavetowithdrawtheirappearance?

MarlboroughHarbourBoardvCharterTravelCo(1989)18NSWLR223

• Factso ShipsankofNZ,cruiseshipo Passengerssuedtheowneroftheship,BalticShipping,andthetravelagent,Charter

Travel,inKandnegligenceo Initiatedclaimalsoagainstcaptaino Dsubsequentlytriedtoamendpleadings

• Heldo Cross-claims; foreign plaintiff deemed to have submitted to jurisdiction for cross-

claims based on same cause of action and different cause of action found on ordirectlyarisingoutofsamesubject-matterasinitialclaim

o Marlborough had submitted to jurisdiction – but if the owner’s of the ship hadbroughtacompletelydifferentclaim,thenitwouldnotbethesameresult

Objectiontojurisdiction

• UCPRr12.11–Settingasideoriginatingprocessetco Objectionstojurisdictiondoesnotconstitutesubmissiontojurisdiction

• UCPRr11.4–Leaveforplaintifftoproceedwherenoappearancebydefendant(C)ServiceelsewhereinAustralia

• Unlike the complexity of the cross-vesting of jurisdiction, the Service and Execution ofProcess Act 1992 (Cth) (hereafter “SEPA”) operates consistently across all Australia andenables service in any state / territory of proceedings for the court of any other state /territory

• Relevantsections–o s5“state”includedthe“territory”o s15(methodofservice)initiatingprocessmaybeservedinanypartofAustralia

§ (1)Aninitiatingprocessissuedinastatemaybeservedinanotherstate

17

§ (2) Service on an individualmust be effected in the sameway as service ofsuchaninitiatingprocessintheplaceofissue

§ (3)Serviceonacompanyoraregisteredbodymustbeeffectedinaccordancewithsection9

McEnteevConnor(1994)4TasR18

• Factso P and D were students at University of Tasmania and then moved to Perth and

started‘livingtogetherinwhatthesedaysisknownas“arelationship”’o TheymovedtoJapantofindworkbutbrokeupafteran‘altercation’o PmovedbacktoTaso DtoWAo PissuedwritoutofTasCtandserveditonDinWAfortortiousassault

• Heldo Applied s 15 to determine whether process properly served – there is no

requirement for leaveor foranyconnectionbetween the jurisdictionandactionàso,serviceeffective

o Forum non conveniens test – SEPA has ousted CL but Tasmania marginally moreconvenientthanWAandnoevidencethatJapanmoreappropriate

o Jurisdictionestablished–nostayinproceedings• Establishes

o Norequirementforleaveo NorequirementforjurisdictionintheAct

(D)ServiceinNZTrans-TasmanProceedingsAct2010(Cth)

• s9ServiceofinitiatingdocumentsinNewZealando (1)An initiatingdocument issuedbyanAustraliancourtor tribunal that relates to

theproceedingmaybeservedinNewZealandunderthisParto (2)However,thedocumentmustbeservedinNewZealandinthesamewaythatthe

document is required or permitted, under the procedural rules of the Australiancourtortribunal,tobeservedintheplaceofissue

o Note§ ForserviceoftheinitiatingdocumentinNewZealandunderthisPart,itisnot

necessaryfortheAustraliancourtortribunal:• (a)Togiveleavefortheservice;or• (b)Tobesatisfied that there isa connectionbetween theproceeding

andAustralia• Covers

o ServiceinNZofinitiatingdocsissuedbyAustralianCourtandTribunals

18

o AustraliancourtsrefusingjurisdictiononbasisthatNZcourtsareamoreappropriateforum

o InterimreliefgrantedbyAustraliancourtsinsupportofNZcivilproceedingso AustraliansubpoenasandserviceinNZ;serviceofNZsubpoenasinAustraliao Remoteproceedingso Recognitionandenforcementofjudgementso Trans-TasmanMarketProceedings(courtssittinginotherstates;lawyersappearing

incourtsetc)o EvidenceofNZmatters

(E)ServiceoutsidetheAustralianjurisdictionProblemquestionanalysis

• AlwaysstartwiththeCorporationsAct,SEPAandTrans-TasmanpiecesoflegislationifitisaforeigncorporationincorporatedinAustralia

• AlwaysstartwiththeUCPR–part11• Steps

o (1)Personaljurisdictionrequirespresencewithinthejurisdictiono (2) BUT rules of court / jurisdiction (based on English legislation) courts’

extraterritorialjurisdictioninrelationtoactionsconnectedwiththejurisdictiono (3)Howdoesitwork?Whatisthelegislativebasis?

§ UCPRr11.2,11.2,11.3etc

(i)Generally

• Serviceoutsidethejurisdictiononlyrelevantwhen–o Noserviceinsidejurisdictiono Noagreemento Nosubmissiono Notinter-state

• ASKàhaveanyoftheseoccurred?• Wheredowefindtherelevantrules?

o Hague Convention on Service of Process Abroad of Judicial and Extra JudicialDocumentsinCivilandCommercialMatters1965[procedureonly?]

o Trans-TasmanProceedingsAct2010(Cth)s9(1)[NZonly]o UCPRandRulesofCourto Caselaw

• NOTE–leaveisn’trequiredinNSW,butitisrequiredintheFederalCourtUCPR’s

• UCPRr11.1–ApplicationofPart• UCPRr11.2–Casesforserviceoforiginatingprocess• UCPRr11.3–NoticetodefendantservedoutsideAustralia

19

• UCPRr11.4–Leaveforplaintifftoproceedwherenoappearancebydefendant• UCPRr11.6–Modeofservice• UCPRr11.7–SettingasideoriginatingprocessservedoutsideAustralia

Leavetoproceed

• UCPRr11.4AgarvHyde(2000)HCA41

• Factso PsufferedinjuryduringascruminarugbygameinNSWo DweremembersofInternationalRugbyFootballBoard,whichmaderugbyruleso Pallegednegligence–failuretotakereasonablecaretochangerulesaboutscrumsto

minimiseinjuryo D served with NSWSC originating process under Supreme Court Rules Part 10

(similartoUCPRr11)o Ddidnotappearo Pappliedforleavetoproceedo NSWSCrefusedongroundsthatP’sclaimhadnoprospectofsuccessbecausetheD

hadnorelevantdutyofcaretotheP• Issue

o DiditfallundertheSchedule?• Note

o Itisanoldercase,soneedtobecarefulo HadtoshowthattheclaimfellwithintheScheduleo At this stage, not requiring to determinewhether therewas a duty of care – only

lookingatthejurisdictionalissues• Held

o CourtlookedatUCPRr12.11(h)(decliningjurisdiction)andr11.2(applicationbyDtosetasideservice)

o Leavenotgrantedo At [55], theHighCourt referred to threeconsiderationsuponwhich theCourtmay

determineanapplicationtosetasideservice,ortohavetheCourtdeclinetoexercisejurisdiction;thesemaybestatedasfollows–

§ (1) That the claims made are not claims of a kind which are described inSchedule6totheUCPR(formerlyPart10,Rule1A)

§ (2)ThattheCourtisaninappropriateforumforthetrialoftheproceeding§ (3) That the claimsmade have insufficient prospects of success to warrant

puttinganoverseasdefendanttothetime,expenseandtroubleofdefendingtheclaims

• Dcanraiseandsatisfythis

20

• They said there was no duty of care – so were looking at thesubstantiveclaimshere

• Burdenofproofo Burdenonpartyseekingleavetoproceedtoshow(inNSW)thatclaimisofakindto

fallwithinoneormoreoftherelevantcategoriesofcasessetoutinSchedule6o Burdenonpartyseekingtopersuadecourtthatcourtisnotauthorisedorthatitisan

inappropriateforumortoexerciseitsdiscretion• UCPRr11.7–“inappropriateforum”

o Questionof“clearlyinappropriateforum”andforumnonconvenienso Is“inappropriateforum”inr11.7thesameas“clearlyinappropriateforum”?(Regie

NationalvZhang–majorityofcourtàinappropriate=clearlyinappropriate)Other–issues–comityandlowercourts

• “…serviceoutofthejurisdictionis‘notamerematterofthepracticeorprocedureobservedbytheparticularcourtintheexerciseofitsjurisdiction…[but]isacomponentandameasureofjurisdictionitself”(GospervSawyer;CochranvSutton)

• Part11–r11.1appliestotheSupremeCourt,notthelowercourtsModeofserviceoverseas

• UCPRr11.6–neednotbepersonallyservedas longas inaccordancewith lawofcountrywhereserved

• Look to whether the country is aHague Convention signatory – if it does apply, use theproceduresundertheconvention

StudorpvRobinson[2012]NSWCA382

• Factso StudorpwasNZsubsidiaryofJamesHardieo Action commenced in NSWDust Diseases Tribunal and served on NZ Company re

mesotheliomao NZCo(P)commencedinSupremeCtNSWseekingdeclarationserviceimproperand

DDTclearlyinappropriateforum• Held

o Dust diseases tribunal did not have jurisdiction to serve (primary judge correct infinding)

o TrialjudgeerredinfindingthatDDTwasnotaclearlyinappropriateforum(nofinaldecisionbutevidenceindicatedDDTwouldbeclearlyinappropriate)

• NBo Thiscasewouldbeaffectedby thenewTransTasmanProceedingsAct inoperation

sinceOct2013butprinciplesstillapplytoOScases• Rule

21

o Inordertoserveoutsidethejurisdiction(seeUCPRr11.1),youmustgothroughtheSupremeCourt

FloRidavMothershipMusicPtyLtd[2013]NSWCA268

• Factso USRapartistFloRidafailedtoappearin”FatasButter”musicfestivalin2011o Suedbyorganisers–Mothership–inDistrictCourto MothershipfiledandattemptedserviceinVictoriabutfailedo In2012,GibsonDCJorderedsubstitutedservice(originatingprocesssentviaemail

andFacebook–butdidn’tlookintoenoughastowhethertheDhimselfmaintainedhisFacebookaccount– therewasaquestionas towhether theproceedingswouldhavebeenbroughttotheattentionoftheD

o 3 August 2012, damages assessed and judgment given in Mothership’s favour inabsenceofanyappearancebyFloRida

• DistrictCourtjudgeordered–o Anorderthatsubstitutedservicebeeffectedontheseconddefendantby:

§ (a)SendingacopyoftheStatementofClaim,NoticeofMotiondated13April2012,AffidavitofStephanieBorgsworn13April2012,OrdersofGibsonDCJdated13April2012,togetherwithacopyofthisorder,byemailtransmissiontotherecipients[whowerenotidentified];and

§ (b) Sending a message to the second defendant via the provision to do soappearingonhisFacebookpage(referredtointheAffidavitofStephanieBorgsworn17April2012)

• Held(CourtofAppeal)o Substituted service should not have been ordered because evidence did not show

that Facebook and email would likely bring originating process to D’s attention,particularlygiventhathewastoleavethedayaftertheorderwasmade

§ E.g.FBpagemightnotbemaintainedbyhimandnoguaranteethathewouldseeaposting

§ IntendedemailrecipientsnotmentionedinorderCochranvSutton[2014]NSWCA185

• Factso MsSuttonsoughtreliefforunfairemploymentcontracto NSW IRC authorised substituted service, in lieu of personal service, by e-mail toD

(Cochran)orpostingdocumentstooneoftwoidentifiedaddressesinDallas,Texaso TheemailreachedDo Dmadeapplicationtohaveservicesetasideunderr12.11(andunderIRCRules)o BolandJ(President)ofIRCconsideredFloRidaandStudorp,andsaidthatanalysisof

StudorpandapplicationinFlodidnotapplytoIRC• Held

22

o “Studorp was concerned with the Dust Diseases Tribunal and Flo Rida with theDistrictCourt,bothinferiorcourts.TheIndustrialCourtisasuperiorcourtofrecordwithequivalentstatustotheSupremeCourt–sees152oftheIRAct”

WhatcourtscanserveoutsideAustralia?

• WhichcourtshavethepowertoserveoutofAustraliaunderUCPRr11andSch6isavexedissuearguedalotinthelastyearandnotnecessarilyresolved

• Sofar–o StudorpvRobinson[2013]NSWCAàDDTcan’to FloRidavMothership[2013]NSWCAàDistrictCourtcan’to SuttonvBEAustralia[2013]NSWIRCàNSWIRCcan

(ii)Contract

• UCPRSch6,paras–o (a)IftheproceedingsarefoundedonacauseofactionarisinginNewSouthWales,o (b)Iftheproceedingsarefoundedonabreach inNewSouthWalesofacontract

(wherevermade),whetherornotthebreachisprecededoraccompaniedbyabreach(wherever occurring) that renders impossible the performance of any part of thecontractwhichought tobeperformed inNewSouthWales, [i.e.Contractbreach inNSWfoundsNSWjurisdiction]

§ Whatisacontract?• Verybroadlyconstruedbycourtstoincludequasi-contract;claimsfor

money had and received; judgement debts; obligations to pay sumscertain;indemnityclaims

§ Whatisabreach?• Construedtoincludeenforcement,rescission,dissolution,rectification

orannulmentorothermattersaffectingacontract(“wherethesubject-matteroftheproceedingsisacontract”)

o (c)Ifthesubject-matteroftheproceedingsisacontractandthecontract:§ i.IsmadeinNewSouthWales,or§ ii. Is made on behalf of the person to be served by or through an agent

carryingonbusinessorresidinginNewSouthWales,or§ iii.IsgovernedbythelawofNewSouthWales,or§ iv.IsoneabreachofwhichwascommittedinNewSouthWales,[i.e.contract

formationinNSWfoundsNSWjurisdiction]PlaceofbreachofcontractSafranvChani(1970)NSWSC

• Factso TheDwasinVictoriaandPinNSW–hadagreedtomarryinNSW

23

o Sent a letter saying he was not going to marry anymore, I.e. there was non-performanceofthecontracttomarry

o Drepudiatedthecontract,andcommunicatedthisbypostingaletter• Issue–wherewastheplaceofbreach?• Held

o Relatedtopostingalettero Placeofrepudiationistheplacewheretherepudiationwassent

• Noteo Distillers case – if ‘should have performed’ in NSW, then that will be the place of

breachLewisConstructionsCovMTichauer[1966]NR341

• Factso Contract between Lewis Construction (building company based in Vic) and French

company(manufacturedpowercranesforuseinconstructionofhighrisebuildings)tomanufacturetwopowercranesforconstructionofbuildinginCBD

o CranesmadeinFranceandshippedtoMelbourneo Part of one of them fell, killing three and injuring several persons and damaging

propertyo Theplaintiff(LewisConstruction)suedtheFrenchcompanyallegingthatdefects in

the design or manufacture constituting a breach of the conditions and warrantiescontainedinthecontract

o PlaintiffsuedinVicandgotleavetoservewritonDinFrance(nbneedleavetoservewritoverseasinViccf.NSW)

o Defendantappliedtohaveserviceofwritsetasideo P argued contract breached in Vic and D argued that contract wasn’t breached in

VictoriaandthereforeitshouldbeheardinFrance• Held

o Victoriancourthadjurisdictiono Inthepresentcase...astoplaceofbreach...

§ ...thecranesweremanufacturedinFranceandpropertypassedinFrance(attheportofshipment)

§ Francewas,therefore,portofdelivery–thatwaswherethecontractwastobeperformed

§ Iftherewasbreachofcontract(aboutthedescriptionofthegoods),thenthatwouldhavebeenatplaceofdelivery(notlateronwhentheyweredeliveredtoVictoriaandinstalledthere

§ Governing law of contract was French, plus French jurisdiction clause –CommercialCourtofLyon

o Astowherethecontractwasmade...§ ...contractwasmadeinVictoria§ SoViccourtstillhadjurisdiction

24

ShowtimeTouringGroupvMoseleyTouringInc[2010]NSWSC974

• Factso Touring contract between P and D for 2nd D (Timbaland) to appear in Australia

breachedo D’sresponsibilitytoensurethatTimbalandappearinAustraliaforaconcerto The D sought an order that the originating process had not been duly served,

pursuanttor11.7oftheUniformCivilProcedureRules2005(NSW),onthebasisthatnoneofthecircumstancesinSchedule6werepresent

• Heldo OfferacceptedoncetheemailwassentbacktoNewYorko Actswould’veoccurredintheUS–I.e.schedulingtravelarrangementsetco So,didnottakeplaceinAustralia,andsotheallegedbreachdidnotoccurinNSW

• Noteo Ifpostal–acceptanceoccurswhenitissent(postalrule)o Electronic–acceptanceoccurswhen it is received(ElectronicTransactionAct2000

(NSW)s13B)KimMichaelProductionsPtyLtdvTropicalIslandsManagementLtd[2010]NSWSC269

• Factso Entertainmentindustrycaseo Oralcontracttopay$500kininstalmentstostageshowonDstropicalislandthemed

resortinGermany(nearBerlin)o $35khadalreadybeenpaidintoaSydneyWestpacaccounto The P sought payment of the entirety of the contract amount and that further

payment should have been made in Sydney, and that therefore the contract wasbreachedinSydneywhenpaymentwasn’tmade

o ThePwasanAustralianregisteredcompanyo Asall3defendantsincorporatedoutsideAustralia,r11(2)UCPRapplied(requiring

Sch6compliance)o Psoughttorelyonrule11.2bearstheonusofestablishingthatitsclaimfallswithin

oneoftheheadsofSchedule6(VothManildraFlourMillsPtyLtd[1990]HCA55)• Held

o Proceedingsvexatiousandstayedo Breachofa contract fornon-paymentofmoneydueundera contractoccursat the

placewherethepaymentwastobemadeo Failure topay full intoaccountwherepaymenthadalreadybeenmadeconstituted

breachininNSW

(iii)Tort

25

• NSWUCPRSchedule6–originatingprocessmaybeservedoutsideAustraliainrelationtothefollowingcircumstances–

o (a)IftheproceedingsarefoundedonacauseofactionarisinginNewSouthWaleso (d)IftheproceedingsarefoundedonatortcommittedinNewSouthWales,o (e) If theproceedings,whollyorpartly,are foundedon,orare for therecovery of

damagesinrespectof,damagesufferedinNewSouthWalescausedbyatortiousactoromissionwhereveroccurring

• ComparisonwithWA–RulesoftheSupremeCourt1971–Order10• Rule1–Whenserviceoutofjurisdictionispermissible

o (1) The Courtmay grant leave to serve a person outside Australiawith awrit, ornoticeofawrit,thatbeginsanactionif–

§ (k)TheactionisfoundedonatortcommittedwithinthejurisdictionDistillersCo(Biochemicals)vThompson(1971)1NSWLR83

• Factso Injury to plaintiff (born with no arms and damaged vision) said to be caused by

pregnant mother using Distaval [thalidomide] sold / distributed by defendants[appellants]

o SuedinNSWfornegligenceforfailuretowarn• Held

o InjuryandfailuretowarnbothoccurredinNSWalthoughmanufactureoccurredinGermanyandpackaginginUK

o “It ismanifestly justandreasonablethatadefendantshouldhavetoanswerforhiswrongdoinginthecountrywherehedidthewrong”

• Considered3possiblemeaningsor “that there isacauseofactionwhicharosewithin thejurisdiction”–

o (i) Place where every aspect of tort occurred (rejected as not modern and wouldcausesometomissoutonremedy

o (ii)Placewherefinalelementoftortcommitted(rejectedaswrongintheory)o (iii) Act on part of defendant which gives plaintiff cause of complaint occurred in

jurisdiction§ YES–correcttheoryasperJacksonvSpittal(1870)

UKDowJones&CoIncvGutnick(2002)202CLR575–defamationoccurswherematerialpublished

• Factso Gutnick (Victorian businessman) claimed article in Dow Jones’ Barron’s magazine

defamedhimo Hardcopymagazine(WSJ)publishedinUSandonNewJerseywebsiteo 14hardcopiessoldinVictoriaand1700Australiansubscribersincludingover300in

Victoriasomeofwhomdownloadedarticle