THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RELATION TO FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND TORT CHOICE OF LAW IN SELECTED COMMONWEALTH JURISDICTIONS William Ton Su Hern, LL. B, B. C. L. Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2006 Uhl Tee 'a ýVof Notf-ingham w tit ýVI ABSTRACT It is well known that in the early stages of legal development in Commonwealth jurisdictions, when these countries were still colonies of the British Empire, there was uniformity in their laws as the English common law was received by these countries and applied by their judiciaries with little or no modifications. As time passed, with the shift towards independence in these former British colonies, some Commonwealth countries have diverged from the English common law by providing for judicial solutions that are perceived to best fit their individual circumstances, values and needs. In other words, there has been a break up of Commonwealth common law. Whilst there has been much academic discussion on this phenomenon in relation to for example, tort and contract, hardly any has been written on private international law. Accordingly, it is the purpose of this thesis to address the paucity of academic writing on this subject matter by undertaking a comparative study of two areas of private international law, namely the doctrine of forum non conveniens and tort choice of law in Australia, Canada and Singapore, with the relevant English common law positions as the key reference point. Specifically, this thesis began by establishing the existence as well as the nature and extent of the break up of forum non conveniens and tort choice of law in our selected Commonwealth jurisdictions. It is then argued that one reason for this phenomenon is that there are differences in the judicial treatment of policies, concepts and other wider considerations relevant to these areas of private international law in these countries. Subsequently, the issue of how these jurisdictions should respond to this phenomenon was examined and we concluded that the prospects for the harmonisation of jurisdictional and tort choice of law rules at the global, regional and Commonwealth level has been largely unpromising. Accordingly, it is argued that the way forward is for our selected Commonwealth jurisdictions to develop their own rules on these areas of private international law with their own social, economic and political circumstances in mind. 1 PREFACE Many have helped and supportedme in the course of my research in writing this thesis. It is difficult to overstate my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor James Fawcett who introduced me to the topic of private international law during my undergraduate days. Without his supervision, constant support, encouragement and of course, his decision to take me on as his PhD student, this thesis would not have been completed. I would also like to thank the University of Nottingham for providing me with the substantial funding as well as the facilities necessary to undertake my comparative study. Thanks also goes to Professor Paul Roberts, Mr. Michael Bowman and Professor Peter Bartlett for their critical and helpful comments on the structure and methodology of my thesis. am also indebted to Professor Adrian Briggs and Mr Edwin Peel who continued my education in private international law after my time at the University of Nottingham. It is your lectures at the University of Oxford that has given me the inspiration for my doctoral research. I am grateful to my friends most notably, KJ Chew, Don Low and Chelvin Sng for their support and encouragement all this time. Lastly and most importantly, I would like to thank my parents, Dr Tong Teck Hwee and Lee Yeong, and my girlfriend, Melody for everything good in my life. To you all, I dedicate this thesis. The law is stated as at 1 August 2006, but it has been possible to include some material since that date. 11 CONTENTS Abstract i ............................................................................................................... Preface il ................................................................................................................ List Abbreviations ' of ......................... List Short Forms in the Thesis of used .............................................................. xix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 ................................................................................. I. OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS: ANALYSING THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 1 ..................................................................................... 2. SCOPE OF THE THESIS 4 ................................................................................... 2.1 Selected international law 4 areas of private .................................................... 2.1.1 Forum 4 non conveniens ........................................................................ 2.1.2 Tort law choice of ............................................ 2.2 Selected Commonwealth jurisdictions 7 .......................................................... 111 2.2.1 Reasons for selecting Australia, Canada and Singapore as the Commonwealth jurisdictions for this thesis 8 .............................................. 2.2.2 Canada Australia: federations 8 and ........................................................ 3. STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE THESIS 11 .......................................... 3.1 Part I: What is the nature and extent of the break up of Commonwealth private international law in jurisdictions? 11 our selected ..................................................... 3.2 Part II: What are the explanations from the case law for the break up of Commonwealth private international law in our selected jurisdictions? 12 ............................................................................................................ 3.3 Part III: How should our selected jurisdictions react to the break up of Commonwealth international law? 17 private ............................................................. PART I WHAT IS THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN OUR SELECTED JURISDICTIONS? CHAPTER 2: THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RELATION TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS 20 ............................. 1. INTRODUCTION 20 ............................................................................................. iv 2. EXAMINING THE VARIOUS DIVERGENCES AND CONVERGENCES IN RELATION TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS 22 ............................................ 2.1. The 22 overall picture ................................................................................... 2.2. Structure the tests 24 of ............................................................................... 2.3. Formulation the tests 28 of ........................................................................... 2.4. Situations to the tests 31 which are applicable ................................................ 2.5. Factors taken into the tests 33 account under ................................................. 2.5.1. Connecting factors 33 ............................................................................ 2.5.2. Legitimate juridical to the 34 advantages parties .......................................... 2.5.3. Considerations justice 41 of ..................................................................... 2.5.4. Public interest factors 44 ........................................................................ 2.6. Weight to factors the tests 46 attached particular under .................................... 2.6.1. Choice law 47 of .................................................................................... 2.6.2. Delays 50 ............................................................................................ 2.7. Difficulty in the tests 53 satisfying ................................................................. 2.8. Forum in federation 54 non conveniens a ....................................................... V 2.8.1. Jurisdiction Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 55 of ....................................... 2.8.2.Service Execution ProcessAct 1992 60 and of ............................................ 3. EXAMINING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RELATION TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVEN/ENS 61 ................................................................................................ 4. CONCLUSIONS 63 ............................................................................................. CHAPTER 3: THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTHPRIVATE INTERNATIONALLAW IN RELATION TO TORT CHOICE OF LAW 67 ............................................................... 1. INTRODUCTION 67 ............................................................................................. 2. EXAMINING THE VARIOUS DIVERGENCESAND CONVERGENCESIN RELATION TO TORT CHOICE OF LAW 68 ............................................................................. 2.1. Characterisation: foreign torts 68 unknown .................................................... 2.1.1. English law Singapore 69 common and ....................................................... 2.1.2. England: Part III the 1995 Act 70 of ............................................................ 2.1.3. Australia Canada 72 and .......................................................................... 2.2. Identifying the the