No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE FORUM BY THE APPLICABLE LAW
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 June 2022
Abstract
The concepts of jurisdiction and applicable law have been traditionally regarded as separate inquiries in private international law: a court only considers the applicable law once it has decided to adjudicate a matter. While such an approach still generally applies in civil law jurisdictions, in common law countries the concepts are increasingly intertwined. This article examines the relationship between jurisdiction and applicable law in two key areas: applications to stay proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens and to enforce foreign exclusive jurisdiction agreements. While courts generally apply the principle that jurisdiction and applicable law should coincide where possible, there are circumstances where a court may retain jurisdiction despite a foreign governing law or may ‘trust’ a foreign tribunal to apply the law of the forum. This article seeks to establish a framework by which courts may assess the role of the applicable law in forum determinations.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law
References
1 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
2 Report on the Convention on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on Jurisdiction and The Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and to the Protocol on Its Interpretation by the Court of Justice, 1979 OJ (C59) 71 (the Schlosser Report); Owusu v Jackson (Case C-281/02) [2005] ECR I-1383.
3 J Fawcett, ‘The Interrelationships of Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Private International Law’ [1991] Current Legal Problems 39. For a United States perspective see Hay, P, ‘The Interrelation of Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in United States Conflicts Law’ (1979) 28 ICLQ 161CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 St Pierre v South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd [1936] 1 KB 382.
5 Fawcett (n 3) 41. Note also that the service-out inquiry also required (and requires) a claimant to show that its claim had a ‘reasonable prospect of success’, which could involve pleading and proof of foreign law.
6 See eg Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460.
7 The Eleftheria [1970] P 94.
8 Fentiman, R, ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ in Encyclopedia of Private International Law (Edward Elgar 2016) 797, 804Google Scholar.
9 Keyes, M, ‘The Doctrine of Renvoi in International Torts: Mercantile Mutual Insurance v Neilson’ (2005) 13 TLJ 1, 14Google Scholar.
10 A Briggs, ‘In Praise and Defence of Renvoi’ (1998) 47 ICLQ 877, 878, 883 (‘choice of law is a stepping stone for determining jurisdiction’); Gray, A, ‘Forum Non Conveniens: A Comparative Analysis’ (2009) 38 CLWR 207, 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar (‘the link between jurisdiction and choice of law issues needs to be more fully acknowledged’).
11 Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, 465.
12 [2013] 2 AC 337 [82]–[83].
13 Bell, A, ‘The Natural Forum Revisited’ in Dickinson, A and Peel, E (eds), A Conflict of Laws Companion (Oxford University Press 2021) 9, 15Google Scholar.
14 See Fentiman (n 8); Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2012] 1 WLR 1804 [5]–[7].
15 Fentiman ibid.
16 Rogerson, P, ‘Problems of the Applicable Law of the Contract in the English Common Law Jurisdiction Rules: The Good Arguable Case’ (2013) 9 JPrivIntlL 387, 409Google Scholar.
17 ‘In a free country it is the privilege of the litigating parties to decide for themselves whether to devote their resources to litigating about where to litigate’: Briggs, A, Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford University Press 2014) [4.406]Google Scholar.
18 Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, 465.
19 Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda [2012] 1 SCR 572 [105].
20 (1990) 171 CLR 538.
21 ibid, 565–566.
22 (2002) 210 CLR 491.
23 ibid [81].
24 (2008) 238 CLR 265 [31].
25 (2010) 268 ALR 377.
26 ibid [63], [150].
27 ibid [150].
28 ibid [66].
29 Similar sentiments were expressed in Puttick v Tenon Ltd (2008) 238 CLR 265 [21], [24], [32].
30 See eg Bell, A, ‘The Future of Private International Law in Australia’ (2012) 19 AustILJ 11, 14Google Scholar: (‘we will have increasingly in Australia transnational litigation where the governing law is not Australian law’); L Collins (ed), Dicey, Morris and Collins The Conflict of Laws (15th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2012) [12-034]: ‘[the Australian position] is not consistent with English law’.
31 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) (TTPA) sections 19(1), (2).
32 TTPA section 19(2); Nevill v Nevill [2016] FamCAFC 41 [34], [40] and [45].
33 VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corporation [2013] 2 AC 337 [46].
34 ‘A Map or a Maze: Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in the Court of Appeal’ (2007) 11 SYBIL 123, 124.
35 Rogerson (n 16) 398–9.
36 The Supreme Court of New South Wales in Australia may order that a question of foreign law or its application be determined by directing that the parties commence proceedings on the point in a foreign court, but only where all parties agree. Memoranda of agreement have been entered into with the courts in Singapore and New York to allow each court to request an opinion from the other court on its law or to request the other court to appoint a referee to determine questions of law. So far, however, there is little evidence of these methods being employed and so their impact on stay applications has been negligible.
37 Kiwi Air Ltd v UTS Geophysics Pty Ltd [2013] NZHC 3236 [34], Rogerson (n 16) 400.
38 See, for a recent example, Satfinance Investment Ltd v Athena Art Finance Corp [2020] EWHC 3527 (Ch) [110].
39 VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corporation [2013] 2 AC 337; Coward v Ambrosiadou [2019] EWHC 2105 (Comm); Xiang Jun v Cheng Chiu Tung Gregory [2017] HKCFI 1632 [48]; Murakami v Wiryadi (2010) 268 ALR 377.
40 [2018] EWHC 389.
41 ibid [80].
42 See eg Xiang Jun v Cheng Chiu Tung Gregory [2017] HKCFI 1632; The Jin Hui [2016] HKCFI 480.
43 Conductive Inkjet-Technology Ltd v Uni-Pixel Displays Inc [2013] EWHC 2968 (Ch) (English and Texan law, claims for breach of contract and confidence); Konamaneni v Rolls Royce India Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269 [170] (no difference in Indian and English law of derivative actions); Rambas Marketing Co LLC v Chow Kom Fai David [2001] HKCFI 1361 [47] (Nevada law of gambling would not be ‘unusually difficult’ for Hong Kong judges); Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd v Independent Power Tanzania Ltd [2015] EWHC 1640 (Comm)[120]–[121] (Tanzanian company and insolvency law based on English law); CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2008] 4 SLR (R) 543 (CA) (Singapore law of unjust enrichment identical to English law); Anil Salgaocar v Thaveri Darsan Jitendra Lakshmi [2019] 2 SLR 372 (CA) [55] (BVI and Singapore law); Hiralal v Hiralal [2013] NSWSC 984 [203] (Fiji and New South Wales law of trusts similar); Haines v Herd [2016] NZHC 1928 [14] (Vanuatu law very similar to New Zealand law); Essar Steel v Algoma Inc 2016 ONSC 595.
44 Conductive Inkjet-Technology Ltd v Uni-Pixel Displays Inc ibid.
45 VTB Commodities Trading v JSC Antipinsky Refinery [2021] EWHC 1758 (Comm); PJSC Bank ‘Finance and Credit’ v Zhevago [2021] EWHC 2522 (Ch); Ditto Ltd v Drive Thru Records LLC [2021] EWHC 2035 (Ch); Dynasty Company for Oil and Gas Trading Ltd v Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq [2021] 3 WLR 1095 (Comm); The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 399, 411.
46 VTB Commodities Trading v JSC Antipinsky Refinery [2021] EWHC 1758 (Comm) [201]; PJSC Bank ‘Finance and Credit’ v Zhevago [2021] EWHC 2522 (Ch) [140]–[141].
47 See eg Bambang Sutrisno v Bali International Finance Ltd [1999] 3 SLR 140 (CA); JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises Ltd [2010] SGCA 41 and generally A Pulle, ‘The Spiliada in Singapore: Time for the Scrapyard?’ (2006) 8 Australian Journal of Asian Law 287, 302–3. The presence of Saudi Arabian law was a key factor in the grant of a stay in Rotary Engineering Ltd v Kioumji and Eslim Law Firm [2017] 1 SLR 907 (CA) [21].
48 Rogerson (n 16) 401.
49 Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (misuse of private information).
50 Teekay Tankers Ltd v STX Offshore and Shipping Co [2014] EWHC 3612 (Comm); FR Lurssen Werft GmbH & Co KG v Halle [2009] EWHC 2607 (Comm) [53]–[54].
51 [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep 585.
52 [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep 191.
53 See eg Hiralal v Hiralal [2013] NSWSC 984 [203]; Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd [2015] NSWSC 906; Bombadier Inc v Avwest Aircraft Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 2; Pocock v Universal City Studios LLC [2012] NSWSC 1481; O'Reilly v Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust [2010] NSWSC 909 [40]; Binqld Finances Pty Ltd (in liq) v Israel Discount Bank Ltd (No. 2) (2020) 384 ALR 148 [188](a); Stewart v Paladin Australia Pty Ltd [2021] SASC 244 [68]; Hargood v OHTL Public Coy [2015] NSWSC 446; Wilson v Addu Investments Private Ltd [2014] NSWSC 381; AB v XY [2020] NSWDC 27.
54 A recent rare exception of a stay being granted on this basis is Nilepac Pty Ltd v Amstelside BV [2020] NSWSC 57 (Dutch law); see also El-Kharouf v El-Kharouf [2004] NSWSC 187 (Jordanian law) (although this case predated Puttick and made no reference to Zhang).
55 [2020] EWHC 1872.
56 Lyle & Scott Ltd v American Eagle Outfitters Inc [2021] EWHC 90 (Ch).
57 Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Baron von Uexkull [2007] 1 SLR 377; see also Kyko Global Inc v M/S Crawford Bayley & Co 2021 ONCA 736 [57] (forum and foreign law cancel each other out).
58 Lars SA v Bone China Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 730; Colosseum Investments Holdings Plc v Vanguard Logistics Services Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 803; Puccini Festival Australia Pty Ltd v Nippon Express Australia Pty Ltd (2007) 17 VR 36; Barach v University of NSW [2011] NSWSC 431.
59 VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corporation [2013] 2 AC 337.
60 ibid [47].
61 [2002] EWCA Civ 1132.
62 See also Chase v Ram Technical Services Ltd [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 418 (English court trusted Albertan court to apply English law).
63 [2017] 2 SLR 265.
64 See eg IM Skaugen SE v MAN Diesel & Turbo SE [2016] SGHCR 6 (aff'd [2019] SGCA 80). Briggs criticised the Singapore Court of Appeal in an earlier decision (Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Baron von Uexkull [2007] 1 SLR 377) for simply assuming that the foreign court would apply the same choice of law rules as the Singapore court: (n 34) 131. For the common applicable law approach to be applied correctly, expert evidence of the foreign choice of law rules must be adduced as occurred in Rappo and Skaugen.
65 (2008) 250 ALR 682.
66 Doe v Armour Pharmaceutical Co Inc [1994] 3 IR 78.
67 [1992] Ch 72.
68 [2010] HKCFI 115.
69 (2010) 273 ALR 167.
70 [2020] NZHC 2032.
71 Fair Trading Act 1986.
72 See also Wing Hung Printing Co Ltd v Saito Offshore Pty Ltd [2010] NZCA 502 [103]–[104] where the court said that it should not be assumed that a foreign court would not give effect to the New Zealand Act.
73 DA Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Discreet Logic Inc Federal Court of Australia, 10 March 1994; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White [1999] 2 VR 681.
74 ibid.
75 Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (Stay Application) [2021] FCA 1082 [337].
76 See eg Green v Australian Industrial Investment Ltd (1989) 90 ALR 500; CE Heath Underwriting & Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd v Barden Supreme Court of New South Wales, 19 October 1994; Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Barilla Alimentare SpA [1999] FCA 592 [8]; Reinsurance Underwriting and Insurance (Aust) Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 56 [321]; Eurogold Ltd v Oxus Holdings (Malta) Ltd [2007] FCA 811; Mineral Commodities Ltd v Promet Engineers (Africa) Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 30 [22]; Lew Footwear Holdings Pty Ltd v Madden International Ltd [2014] VSC 320 [236]; Urban Moto Imports Pty Ltd v KTM AG [2021] VSC 616 [104] (unconscionability under ACL).
77 Laminex (Australia) Pty Ltd v Coe Manufacturing Co [1997] NSWSC 665.
78 Armacel Pty Ltd v Smurfit Stone Container Corp (2008) 248 ALR 573.
79 See section IV.B.
80 Briggs, A, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford University Press 2008)Google Scholar [11.52]–[11.53] and (n 17) [4.411].
81 Symeonides, S, Codifying Choice of Law Around the World: An International Comparative Analysis (Oxford University Press 2014) 346CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A Mills, ‘Conceptualising Party Autonomy in Private International Law’ [2019] Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 417.
82 Yeo, TM, ‘The Rise of Party Autonomy in Commercial Conflict of Laws’ in Bath, V, Dickinson, A, Douglas, M and Keyes, M (eds), Commercial Issues in Private International Law: A Common Law Perspective (Hart Publishing 2019) 257, 258Google Scholar.
83 Rogerson (n 16) 401.
84 Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc [1990] 2 WLR 117, 134 (Staughton LJ); Stonebridge Underwriting Ltd v Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange [2010] EWHC 2279 (Comm) [33].
85 Herceg Novi v Ming Galaxy [1998] 4 All ER 238, 247 (CA).
86 Hook, M, ‘The Choice of Law Agreement as a Reason for Exercising Jurisdiction’ (2014) 63 ICLQ 963, 964, 968–9Google Scholar; accord Bell, A, Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation (Oxford University Press 2003)Google Scholar [4.60].
87 [2013] EWHC 328 (Comm).
88 See also The Magnum [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep 47 (English choice of law would be overridden by Spanish public policy); Golden Ocean v Salgaocar [2011] EWHC 56 (Comm); The Channel Ranger [2013] EWHC 3081 (Comm) and the comments by Collins LJ (as he then was) in Novus Aviation Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik AS [2009] EWCA Civ 122 [78]. See also Bell (n 86) [4.61].
89 Hook, (n 86) 964, 970–5.
90 FR Lurssen Werft v Halle [2009] EWHC 2607 (Comm) [49] (emphasis added).
91 [2005] EWHC 2351 (Comm) [62].
92 [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 504.
93 The inclusion of a forum jurisdiction clause (even if non-exclusive) and a choice of law clause however tips the balance in favour of exercising jurisdiction on the basis that this is yet further evidence of party autonomy on the issue of jurisdiction. This result occurred in the Australian case Ace Insurance Ltd v Moose Enterprise Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 724 where an anti-suit injunction was granted to restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of New South Wales jurisdiction and choice of law clauses. The court there also found that the choice of law rules of the foreign court would enforce the New South Wales choice of law clause (at [62]) and so a ‘common applicable law’ outcome was reached.
94 cf Novus Aviation Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik AS [2009] EWCA Civ 122.
95 cf Dicey, Morris and Collins The Conflict of Laws (n 30) [12-034] and Stonebridge Underwriting Ltd v Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange [2010] EWHC 2279; Dornoch Ltd v Mauritius Union Assurance Co Ltd [2005] EWHC 1887 [79] (aff'd [2006] EWCA 389 [52]–[53]).
96 Unwired Planet International v Huawei [2020] UKSC 37.
97 [2020] EWHC 2072 (Ch) (aff'd [2020] EWCA Civ 1293).
98 See eg Petroleo Brasiliero SA v Mellitus Shipping Inc [2001] CLC 1151 (only forum court would recognise a claim for contribution); Ashton Investments Ltd v OJSC Russian Aluminium (RUSAL) [2006] EWHC 2545 (Comm) (claim in tort only available under forum law); TGT v TGU [2015] SGHCF 10 (no child maintenance claim under foreign law); China Medical Technologies (in liq) v Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP [2019] HKCFI 2631 (claim in tort under Hong Kong law would be defeated by a foreign court applying is own law); Fort Hills Energy LP v Jotun A/S 2019 ABQB 237 [159]–[161] (claim for negligent misrepresentation only available under forum law); Re Douglas Webber Events Pty Ltd (2014) 104 ACSR 250 (claim would fail in New Zealand court as it had no jurisdiction under either New Zealand or Australian companies legislation to allow a derivative action in respect of an Australian company).
99 Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 265 [109]–[110].
100 The Reecon Wolf [2012] 2 SLR 289 (HC); The Chou Shan [2014] FCAFC 90; The Herceg Novi v Ming Galaxy [1998] 4 All ER 238; cf The Adighuna Meranti [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep 384 (HKCA).
101 [2009] NZHC 2477.
102 [2017] 2 SLR 814.
103 [2020] SGCA 62.
104 1 July 1985 The Hague No. 30 (entered into force 1 January 1992).
105 [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 433.
106 Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse AG [2018] NZHC 1755.
107 ibid [149].
108 See eg Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce International Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269; Oro Negro Drilling Pte Ltd v Integradora de Servicios Petroleros Oro Negro SAPI de CV [2020] 1 SLR 226 (Sing CA).
109 See (n 98).
110 [1998] 4 All ER 238.
111 See also Seismic Shipping v Total E & P UK plc [2005] EWCA Civ 985.
112 The Milano Bridge [2022] HKCA 157.
113 Banco Atlantico SA v The British Bank of the Middle East [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 504.
114 [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep 384.
115 For Australia see Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491 and for England see Rome II Regulation art 4(1) enacted in The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (UK Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/834). cf in Canada where ‘jurisdiction simpliciter’ may not exist in this situation under the ‘presumptive factors’ in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda [2012] 1 SCR 572 [90]. In such a case the forum non conveniens inquiry is not reached: see Misyura v Walton (2012) 112 OR (3d) 462.
116 [2013] EWHC 2188.
117 See also Pike v The Indian Hotels Company Ltd [2013] EWHC 4096 (QB); Wink v Croatio Osiguranje DD [2013] EWHC 1118 (QB); Hardaker v Mana Island Resort (Fiji) Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1863 and O'Reilly v Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust [2010] NSWSC 909 [40].
118 [2009] SGCA 52.
119 [2006] 1 HKC 107.
120 See eg Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575; Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] 1 WLR 1004 (HL); Lewis v King [2004] EWCA Civ 1329; Breeden v Black [2012] 1 SCR 666.
121 Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946.
122 See cases at (n 120) and Mardas v New York Times [2008] EWHC 3135 (QB) and generally Garnett, R and Richardson, M, ‘Libel Tourism or Just Redress: Reconciling the (English) Right to Reputation with the (American) Right to Free Speech in Cross-Border Libel Cases’ (2009) 5 JPrivIntL 471Google Scholar.
123 Wright v Ver [2020] EWCA Civ 672; Ahuja v Politika Novine 1 Magazini DOO [2016] 1 WLR 1414 (QB).
124 [2018] 2 SCR 3.
125 McLachlin CJ, Moldaver and Gascon JJ (with whom Karakatsanis J agreed on this point) ibid [207], [100]. This was the position in previous Canadian cases, see Breeden v Black [2012] 1 SCR 666 [32]–[33]; Éditions Écosociété Inc v Banro Corp [2012] 1 SCR 636 [49].
126 Cote J (with whom Brown and Rowe JJ agreed) ibid [89].
127 [2021] BCCA 466.
128 [2018] EWHC 389 (Adm).
129 ibid [80].
130 Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 265.
131 ibid [122]. Interestingly, the SICC itself said in BNP Paribas Wealth Management v Agam [2017] 3 SLR 27 [47] that that as an international commercial court, with an international judge from France, it was equipped to apply French law to decide a dispute.
132 Rules of Court O 110 r 25.
133 Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 265 [123].
134 [2015] DIFC CFI 020 (aff'd [2016] DIFC CA 003).
135 ibid [35].
136 Tavira Securities Ltd v Re Point Ventures [2017] DIFC CFI 026.
137 Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin [2012] DIFC CA 003.
138 KBC Aldini Capital Ltd v Baazov [2017] DIFC CFI 002.
139 The DIFC has a similar procedure to the Singaporean O 110 r 25: Fidel v (1) Felecia (2) Faraz [2015] DIFC CA 002.
140 [1970] P 94.
141 ibid, 99–100.
142 Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd (in liq) (2010) 79 ACSR 383; British Aerospace plc v Dee Howard Co [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 368.
143 The Benarty [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 244, 251; The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 399, 414.
144 See eg in Australia, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991(Cth) section 11(2), ACL section 67(b).
145 Akai Pty Ltd v People's Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418.
146 See text at (nn 73–78).
147 Keyes, M, Jurisdiction in International Litigation (Federation Press 2005) 268Google Scholar; Davies, M, Bell, AS, Brereton, PLG and Douglas, M, Nygh's Conflict of Laws in Australia (10th edn, LexisNexis 2020)Google Scholar [7.43].
148 [2018] FCA 1033 and No.2 [2018] FCA 1093.
149 [2018] FCA 1033 [19].
150 [2018] FCA 1093 [17].
151 See also Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White [1999] 2 VR 681; Faxtech Pty Ltd v ITL Optronics [2011] FCA 1320 [18].
152 Bell (n 86) [5.42].
153 [1993] 3 NZLR 135.
154 Ash v Lloyds Corporation (1992) 9 OR (3d) 755.
155 See eg Knight v Adventure Associates Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 861 and Quinlan v Safe International Forsakrings AB [2005] FCA 1362 but cf Gonzalez v Agoda Co Pte Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1133 (Singapore exclusive jurisdiction agreement enforced against Australian consumer).
156 Douez v Facebook Inc [2017] I SCR 751.
157 It has been suggested that an ACL claim for misleading and deceptive conduct, for example, could be characterised as a tort under the choice of law rules of a foreign country and so admitted in the foreign court on that basis: see Davies et al. (n 147) [8.58].
158 This was the result in Home Ice Cream Pty Ltd v McNabb Technologies LLC [2018] FCA 1033 [20], Faxtech Pty Ltd v ITL Optronics [2011] FCA 1320 (although no expert evidence was led on that issue) and Urban Moto Imports Pty Ltd v KTM AG [2021] VSC 616 [76] (unconscionability under ACL).
159 Leigh Mardon Pty Ltd v PRC Inc (1993) 44 FCR 88, 104–105; Parnell Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Lonza Ltd [2017] NSWSC 562.
160 See Bell (n 86) [3.111]. Note that in both Home Ice Cream Pty Ltd v McNabb Technologies LLC [2018] FCA 1033 [21] and Urban Moto Imports Pty Ltd v KTM AG [2021] VSC 616 [76] no comparable relief was found to exist under foreign law.
161 Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc [2021] FCAFC 122.
162 [2021] FCA 338.
163 Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc [2021] FCAFC 122 [104], [108], 109], [122]. For example, the more stringent requirements for injunctive relief under United States law, the capacity for factual findings to be used as evidence in a subsequent proceeding, the availability of specialist judges in the Federal Court and the potential for the Australian competition regulator to intervene in local proceedings.
164 Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc [2021] FCAFC 122 [110].
165 Epic Games Inc v Google LLC (Stay Application) [2022] FCA 66.
166 ibid [46].
167 cf Exportrade Corp v Irie Blue New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZCA 675 [56].
168 See eg Lubbe v Cape Plc [2000] UKHL 41.
169 Epic Games Inc v Google LLC (Stay Application) [2022] FCA 66 [51], [53], [56].
170 ibid [134]–[153], referring to CCA sections 80, 83, 87(1A) and (2)(b).
171 Baghlaf Al Zafer Factory Company v Pakistan National Shipping Company (No.2) [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1.
172 [2018] SGCA 65.
173 ibid [134].
174 Akai Pty Ltd v People's Insurance Co Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 90.
175 OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corp [2005] EWCA Civ 710.
176 See section III.B.6.
177 It is unclear whether the 2005 Hague Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements will change this position. Relevantly, a foreign exclusive choice of court agreement may not be enforced where to do so ‘would lead to a manifest injustice or be manifestly contrary to public policy of the court seised’ (art 6(c)). An Australian court, for example, may consider the operation of a mandatory substantive forum statute as part of ‘public policy’. This provision also applies as between Australia and New Zealand: see TTPA section 25(2)(c).
178 [2021] UKSC 45 (Lord Leggatt, with whom Lords Reed, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Burrows agreed).
179 ibid [124], [126].
180 ibid [144]–[145]. The presumption may also not be so easily applied in libel cases, where the risk of differing laws is higher: Soriano v Forensic News LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 1952 [63].
181 ibid [147].
182 Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492; Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co Ltd v Alfield Group Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1223.
183 See eg Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491; Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd (2005) 223 CLR 331. See also Nicholls v Michael Wilson (2010) 243 FLR 177 [334] and Palmer v Turnbull [2018] QCA 112. New Zealand law appears to be similar: Torchlight Fund No 1 LP (in rec) v Johnstone [2015] NZHC 2559 [79].
184 [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377.
185 ibid [43].