Double actionability

Double actionability is a doctrine of private international law which holds that an action for an alleged tort committed in a foreign jurisdiction can be successful in a domestic court only if it would be actionable under both the laws of the home jurisdiction and the foreign jurisdiction. The rule originated in the controversial case of Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1.

The rule is no longer used in Canadian law and instead the lex loci delicti rule is used.[1] Likewise, the rule no longer forms part of Australian law which also uses the lex loci delicti rule.[2] This rule holds that the applicable law for a tort committed in a foreign place will be the tort law of the foreign place.

It remains used in New Zealand tort law.[3] Though its continued existence has been called into question, with many suggesting it should be replaced with a rule similar to that of Canada's.

The rule has largely been abandoned in English law by virtue of section 10 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995,[4] although defamation claims are specifically excluded (cf. section 13(1)). However, even prior to it being abandoned the courts had increasingly distanced themselves from the rule by applying a "flexible exception". The exception was first applied in Boys v Chaplin [1969] 2 All ER 1085 and expanded upon in Red Sea Insurance v Bouygues SA [1995] 1 AC 190.[5]

References

  1. ↑ Tolofson v. Jensen [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022
  2. ↑ John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503
  3. ↑ Baxter v RMC Group plc [2003] 1 NZLR 304.
  4. ↑ "Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995". Retrieved 29 March 2017.
  5. ↑ Martin George (11 November 2006). "Forum Non Conveniens and Choice of Law in Tort & Equity in the Singapore Court of Appeal".


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.