Conflict of laws in international torts cases: the need for reform on both sides of the Tasman

Abstract

The article compares the New Zealand and Australian positions regarding choice of law rules for international torts, concluding that current jurisprudence in both countries could further align so that the law of the place of the wrong is applied to resolve the case, subject to a flexible exception. The article concludes that New Zealand's adherence to double actionability is untenable, as is the refusal of the Australian High Court to entertain a flexible exception to the rule that the law of the place of the wrong is the applicable law.