• Specific Year
    Any

McComish, James --- "Pleading and Proving Foreign Law in Australia" [2007] MelbULawRw 17; (2007) 31(2) Melbourne University Law Review 400

[∗] BA (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Melb). I am grateful to Emily Byrne, William Edwards and Perry Herzfeld for their comments on an earlier draft.

[1] In this regard, the most significant efforts are those which unify substantive law, such as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, opened for signature 11 April 1980, 1489 UNTS 58 (entered into force 1 January 1988) (‘Vienna Convention’). On this point: see, eg, James J Fawcett, Jonathan M Harris and Michael Bridge, International Sale of Goods in the Conflict of Laws (2005) ch 16. Other conventions harmonise aspects of choice of law but not the underlying substantive law, such as the Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on Their Recognition, concluded 1 July 1985, 1664 UNTS 322 (entered into force 1 January 1992). Each of these conventions has been incorporated into Australian law: Sale of Goods (Vienna Convention) Act 1987 (Vic); Trusts (Hague Convention) Act 1991 (Cth).

[2] Some mandatory rules of the forum cover large swathes of the law: see, eg, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth) s 11; Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) s 8; Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 67. Other mandatory rules are more particularised in scope: see, eg, Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic) s 4.3.19; James Hardie (Civil Liability) Act 2005 (NSW) s 4.

[3] Walter Wheeler Cook, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws (1942) 166.

[4] P E Nygh and Martin Davies, Conflict of Laws in Australia (7th ed, 2002) ch 17; Edward I Sykes and Michael C Pryles, Australian Private International Law (3rd ed, 1991) 267–78; R G Mortensen, Private International Law in Australia (2006) ch 8.

[5] Sykes and Pryles, above n 4, 278.

[6] Arthur Nussbaum, Principles of Private International Law (1943) 248.

[7] Richard Fentiman, Foreign Law in English Courts (1998). Also warranting mention is Professor Adrian Briggs, author of the chapter on the proof of foreign law in Lawrence Collins (ed), Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (14th ed, 2006) ch 9 (‘Dicey and Morris’). See also Adrian Briggs, The Conflict of Laws (2002) 3–8.

[8] Arthur Nussbaum, ‘The Problem of Proving Foreign Law’ (1941) 50 Yale Law Journal 1018; William B Stern, ‘Foreign Law in the Courts: Judicial Notice and Proof’ (1957) 45 California Law Review 23; Arthur R Miller, ‘Federal Rule 44.1 and the “Fact” Approach to Determining Foreign Law: Death Knell for a Die-Hard Doctrine’ (1967) 65 Michigan Law Review 613; Milton Pollack, ‘Proof of Foreign Law’ (1978) 26 American Journal of Comparative Law 470; Stephen L Sass, ‘Foreign Law in Federal Courts’ (1981) 29 American Journal of Comparative Law 97; Roger J Miner, ‘The Reception of Foreign Law in the US Federal Courts’ (1995) 43 American Journal of Comparative Law 581.

[9] See especially Sofie Geeroms, Foreign Law in Civil Litigation: A Comparative and Functional Analysis (2004); Trevor C Hartley, ‘Pleading and Proving Foreign Law: The Major European Systems Compared’ (1996) 45 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 271; Stephen L Sass, ‘Foreign Law in Civil Litigation: A Comparative Survey’ (1968) 16 American Journal of Comparative Law 332; O Kahn-Freund, General Problems of Private International Law (1976) ch 11; Martin Wolff, Private International Law (2nd ed, 1950) ch 17.

[10] [2000] HCA 36; (2000) 203 CLR 503.

[11] [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491.

[12] Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1; Koop v Bebb [1951] HCA 77; (1951) 84 CLR 629; Anderson v Eric Anderson Radio & TV Pty Ltd [1965] HCA 61; (1965) 114 CLR 20; Breavington v Godleman [1988] HCA 40; (1988) 169 CLR 41; McKain v R W Miller & Co (SA) Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 56; (1991) 174 CLR 1; Stevens v Head [1993] HCA 19; (1993) 176 CLR 433.

[13] [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331.

[14] [2001] NSWCA 87; (2001) 52 NSWLR 492.

[15] Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491, 520 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[16] See O’Driscoll v J Ray McDermott SA [2006] WASCA 25 (Unreported, Malcolm CJ, McLure JA and Murray AJA, 22 February 2006) (‘O’Driscoll’). Cf Barcelo v Electrolytic Zinc Co of Australasia Ltd [1932] HCA 52; (1932) 48 CLR 391, 437–8 (Evatt J); Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50, 61–2 (Lord Diplock); Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd [1960] Ch 52, 96–7 (Jenkins and Romer LJJ).

[17] O’Driscoll [2006] WASCA 25 (Unreported, Malcolm CJ, McLure JA and Murray AJA, 22 February 2006); Hamilton v Merck & Co Inc [2006] NSWCA 55; (2006) 66 NSWLR 48. Internationally, cf Society of Lloyd’s v Price [2006] SCA 87 (Unreported, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, Howie P, Scott, Zulman and van Heerden JJA and Cachalia AJA, 3 March 2006); Harding v Wealands [2004] EWCA Civ 1735; [2005] 1 All ER 415; revd [2006] EWCA Civ 524; [2006] 4 All ER 1.

[18] See below Part VII.

[19] Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491, 521 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). Callinan J dissented on this point at 563:

I cannot accept, however, as the Court of Appeal did, that a judgment that a particular foreign law should be the law to determine the parties’ rights and obligations is irrelevant to the question of appropriateness … No doubt, courts in Australia can and do regularly apply foreign law, but it would be vain to claim that they can, or would do it with the same familiarity and certainty as the courts of the jurisdiction in which it was created.

[20] Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575; Union Shipping New Zealand Ltd v Morgan [2002] NSWCA 124; (2002) 54 NSWLR 690; Pacific Petroleum Corporation v Nauru Phosphate Corporation [2002] QSC 389 (Unreported, Mullins J, 26 November 2002); DrillTec Gut GmbH Grossbohr-und-Umwelttechnik v Campbell [2002] NSWSC 1173 (Unreported, Macready AJ, 10 December 2002) (‘DrillTec’); Australian Power & Water Pty Ltd v Independent Public Business Corporation of Papua New Guinea [2003] NSWSC 1227 (Unreported, McDougall J, 19 December 2003); Mills v Commonwealth [2003] NSWSC 794; [2003] Aust Torts Reports 81-714; El-Kharouf v El-Kharouf [2004] NSWSC 187 (Unreported, Burchett AJ, 23 June 2004); Colosseum Investment Holdings Pty Ltd v Vanguard Logistics Services Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 803 (Unreported, Palmer J, 10 August 2005); Murakami v Wiryadi [2006] NSWSC 1354 (Unreported, Gzell J, 7 December 2006); Zhang v Zemin [2007] NSWSC 229 (Unreported, Harrison Ass J, 19 March 2007).

[21] Amwano v Parbery (2005) 148 FCR 126; Puttick v Fletcher Challenge Forests Ltd [2006] VSC 370 (Unreported, Harper J, 13 October 2006) (‘Puttick’); McGregor v Potts [2005] NSWSC 1098 (Unreported, Brereton J, 31 October 2005). See also Murakami v Wiryadi [2006] NSWSC 1354 (Unreported, Gzell J, 7 December 2006).

[22] DrillTec [2002] NSWSC 1173 (Unreported, Macready AJ, 10 December 2002).

[23] Singh v Singh [2006] WASC 182 (Unreported, Simmonds J, 24 August 2006).

[24] Neufeld v OZ-US Film Productions Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] NSWCA 335 (Unreported, Spigelman CJ, Hodgson and Beazley JJA, 2 October 2002) (‘Neufeld’); cf Gray v Gray (2004) 12 BPR 22 755.

[25] Union Shipping New Zealand Ltd v Morgan [2002] NSWCA 124; (2002) 54 NSWLR 690.

[26] Dachser GmbH & Co KG v Waco Australia Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1049 (Unreported, Rolfe J, 16 November 2000) (‘Dachser’).

[27] Walter Rau Neusser Oel und Fett AG v Cross Pacific Trading Ltd [2005] FCA 1102 (Unreported, Allsop J, 15 August 2005); International Entertainment (Aust) Pty Ltd v Churchill [2002] QSC 317 (Unreported, Holmes J, 11 October 2002). Sometimes, the ‘defence’ arises because the foreign law lacks or does not recognise the relevant legal principle: see, eg, Evalena Pty Ltd v Rising Sun Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 306 (Unreported, Young CJ in Eq, 11 April 2003) (claim that Japanese law did not recognise trusts); Bank Polska v Opara [2007] QSC 1 (Unreported, Chesterman J, 11 January 2007) (claim that Polish law lacked an equivalent of the principle in Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd [1998] HCA 48; (1998) 194 CLR 395).

[28] See Fentiman, above n 7, 78–80; Dicey and Morris, above n 7, ch 9. The extent to which the criminal cases rely on civil law precedents is amply demonstrated in R v Mokbel (Ruling No 4) [2006] VSC 137 (Unreported, Gillard J, 16 March 2006) (‘Mokbel’). It must also be noted that foreign criminal law can arise incidentally in Australian civil litigation. In many such cases, the issue is resolved by the default application of Australian law: see below Part VII.

[29] R v Turner [No 4] [2001] TASSC 51; (2001) 10 Tas R 81.

[30] R v Rigney-Hopkins [2005] QCA 275; (2005) 154 A Crim R 433.

[31] Mokbel [2006] VSC 137 (Unreported, Gillard J, 16 March 2006).

[32] Zeng v The Queen [2005] NSWSC 1344 (Unreported, McClellan CJ at CL, 16 December 2005).

[33] For some reason, the law of France arises comparatively frequently in this regard: see, eg, Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc [No 2] [2002] FCA 258 (Unreported, Heerey J, 27 February 2002); Klein v Botsman [2003] TASSC 106 (Unreported, Blow J, 20 October 2003); Compagnie Maritime Des Isles v Bureau Veritas-Registre International de Classification de Navires et d’Aeroneufs ‘Société Anonyme A Directoire et Conseil de Surveillance’ [2005] FCA 1063 (Unreported, Kiefel J, 3 August 2005) (‘Compagnie Maritime’). Cases concerning other countries include: Fina Research SA v Halliburton Energy Services Inc [2002] FCA 1331 (Unreported, Moore J, 29 October 2002) (Belgium); Limberis v N Limberis & Sons Pty Ltd [2004] SASC 186 (Unreported, Gray J, 25 June 2004) (Greece); Soh v Commonwealth [2006] FCA 575; (2006) 231 ALR 425 (Korea); Aopi v Rapke [2002] NSWSC 711 (Unreported, Levine J, 15 August 2002) (PNG); Knott v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 12; (2001) 104 IR 84 (US, Illinois).

[34] The invocation of Illinois law succeeded in Knott v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 12; (2001) 104 IR 84, even without proof of the content of that law. An invocation of Korean law with proof was successful in Soh v Commonwealth [2006] FCA 575; (2006) 231 ALR 425.

[35] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 420(2)(a).

[36] Aala v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 204 (Unreported, Gray, Carr and Goldberg JJ, 21 June 2002).

[37] Madafferi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 220; (2002) 118 FCR 326.

[38] Applicants in V 722 of 2000 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1059 (Unreported, Ryan J, 18 September 2002); VSAB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 239 (Unreported, Weinberg J, 17 March 2006).

[39] Singh v Singh [2006] WASC 182 (Unreported, Simmonds J, 24 August 2006).

[40] See, eg, the classic statement of Jordan CJ in Vacuum Oil Pty Co Ltd v Stockdale [1942] NSWStRp 31; (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 239, 243–4.

[41] DrillTec [2002] NSWSC 1173 (Unreported, Macready AJ, 10 December 2002); Mills v Commonwealth [2003] NSWSC 794; [2003] Aust Torts Reports 81-714; Puttick [2006] VSC 370 (Unreported, Harper J, 13 October 2006).

[42] Boele v Norsemeter Holding AS [2002] NSWCA 363 (Unreported, Handley, Beazley and Giles JJA, 13 November 2002); AEP Belgium SA v Packaging House Aust Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 174 (Unreported, Habersberger J, 3 June 2003); OW Bunker & Trading Co Ltd A/S v ‘Mawashi Al Gasseem’ [2005] FCA 1041 (Unreported, Finn J, 26 July 2005); O’Driscoll [2006] WASCA 25 (Unreported, Malcolm CJ, McLure JA and Murray AJA, 22 February 2006).

[43] (2000) 201 CLR 552, 576 (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[44] See, eg, Neufeld [2002] NSWCA 335 (Unreported, Spigelman CJ, Hodgson and Beazley JJA, 2 October 2002).

[45] See, eg, General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125; Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62.

[46] DrillTec [2002] NSWSC 1173 (Unreported, Macready AJ, 10 December 2002) [23]. The same is true of applications for summary judgment: AEP Belgium SA v Packaging House Aust Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 174 (Unreported, Habersberger J, 3 June 2003).

[47] Cosmetic Equipment Co Pty Ltd v Mobile Cosmetic Treatment Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 194 (Unreported, Williams J, 27 April 2007).

[48] Joondalup Country Club Holdings Ltd v Basuki [2000] WASC 251 (Unreported, Master Sanderson, 17 October 2000) (Singapore); Knott v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 12; (2001) 104 IR 84 (US, Illinois); Pico Holdings Inc v Dominion Capital Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 334 (Unreported, Bongiorno J, 30 August 2001) (US, California); Quanta Software International Pty Ltd v Computer Management Services Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1459; [2001] AIPC 91-757 (NZ); Versace v Monte [2001] FCA 1572 (Unreported, Tamberlin J, 6 November 2001) (Italy); International Entertainment (Aust) Pty Ltd v Churchill [2002] QSC 317 (Unreported, Holmes J, 11 October 2002) (NZ); CTA International Pty Ltd v Sichuan Changhong Electric Co Ltd [2002] VSC 374 (Unreported, Byrne J, 6 September 2002) (People’s Republic of China); Playcorp Pty Ltd v Taiyo Kogyo Ltd [2003] VSC 108 (Unreported, Hansen J, 24 April 2003) (Japan, Malaysia and Singapore); Government of Japan v Global Air Leasing Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 221 (Unreported, Muir J, 17 July 2003) (Jordan); Klein v Botsman [2003] TASSC 106 (Unreported, Blow J, 20 October 2003) (France); Official Trustee v Pastro [2004] FCA 713 (Unreported, Mansfield J, 9 June 2004) (Italy); Zhu v Treasurer (NSW) [2004] HCA 56; (2004) 218 CLR 530 (PRC); The Society of Lloyd’s v Marich [2004] FCA 1502; (2004) 139 FCR 560 (England); Tisand Pty Ltd v The Owners of the Ship MV Cape Moreton (Ex Freya) [2004] FCA 1191; (2004) 141 FCR 29 (Liberia); JL and PTL [2006] FamCA 445 (Unreported, Carmody J, 1 June 2006) (Ghana).

[49] Fina Research SA v Halliburton Energy Services Inc [2002] FCA 1281 (Unreported, Moore J, 21 October 2002) (Norwegian patents law); Ye v Crown Ltd [2003] FCA 507 (Unreported, Gyles J, 23 May 2003) (Chinese foreign exchange controls).

[50] For example, that the State of Illinois is an important commercial centre which ‘could be presumed therefore to have a legal system of some sophistication and efficiency’ (Knott v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 12; (2001) 104 IR 84, 94 (Wright J)), or that France is not a paradise for foreign judgment creditors: Klein v Botsman [2003] TASSC 106 (Unreported, Blow J, 20 October 2003).

[51] See, eg, the suggestion by one judge that under Malaysian law a contract could be enforced despite a lack of privity, discussed in Malaysia International Shipping Corporation Bhd v VISA Australia Pty Ltd [2003] VSCA 64 (Unreported, Phillips, Buchanan and Chernov JJA, 30 May 2003). Malaysian law does in fact recognise the doctrine of privity: Kepong Prospecting Ltd v Schmidt [1968] AC 810 (on appeal from the Federal Court of Malaysia).

[52] Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491, 520 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[53] Ibid 517 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[54] Ibid 518 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[55] Walker v W A Pickles Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 281, 284–5 (Hutley JA).

[56] See below Part VII.

[57] Fentiman, above n 7, 70–4; Peter North, ‘Choice in Choice of Law’ in Peter North (ed), Essays in Private International Law (1993) 171, 179–81.

[58] Mary Keyes, ‘Foreign Law in Australian Courts: Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd(2007) 15 Torts Law Journal 9, 27–8.

[59] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 372 (Gummow and Hayne JJ), approving Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491, 518–19 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). For an early and very direct illustration of this point: see Wright, Heaton & Co v Barrett (1892) 13 NSWR 206.

[60] See, eg, Cuba Railroad Co v Crosby, 22 US 473 (1912) (failure to prove Cuban law); Walton v Arabian American Oil Co, 223 F 2d 541 (2nd Cir, 1956) (failure to prove Saudi Arabian law). The vested rights theory has been rejected in Australia. In the private international law context see: Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491, 517 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). In the constitutional context: see Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, 573 (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[61] Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491, 518–19 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[62] Ibid 518. See, eg, Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [No 14] [2000] NSWSC 1141 (Unreported, Einstein J, 7 December 2000).

[63] Cf Geeroms, above n 9, ch 2.

[64] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 370.

[65] Ibid 338. On this point, Kirby J was certainly correct to observe that the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence of Chinese law ‘probably originates in an erroneous assumption on the part of the appellant’s advisers (evident in the pleadings) that it was sufficient for the appellant to rely on the substantive law of the Western Australian forum’: at 395. This assumption may have been erroneous but it was certainly understandable, as Mrs Neilson commenced her case in 1997, well before either John Pfeiffer [2000] HCA 36; (2000) 203 CLR 503 or Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491 were decided.

[66] Allstate Life Insurance Co v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Beaumont J, 13 September 1994). See below Part V for the status of foreign law as a question of fact.

[67] See also Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 11; Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) pt 14; Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 149; Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 98; Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas) div 17; Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 20.

[68] On the other hand, one should avoid pleading a ‘prolix smorgasbord of particulars’: Amaca Pty Ltd v Frost [2006] NSWCA 173 (Unreported, Spigelman CJ, Santow and McColl JJA, 4 July 2006) [24] (Spigelman CJ).

[69] [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491, 517–18 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[70] Sir Jack I H Jacob and Iain S Goldrein (eds), Bullen and Leake and Jacob’s Precedents of Pleadings (13th ed, 1990) 1170. On the current English position: see Sir Jack I H Jacob and Iain S Goldrein (eds), Bullen and Leake and Jacob’s Precedents of Pleadings (15th ed, 2004) vol 1, 20–1.

[71] See, eg, Neufeld [2002] NSWCA 335 (Unreported, Spigelman CJ, Hodgson and Beazley JJA, 2 October 2002) [26] (Hodgson JA); Hewitt v ATP Tour Inc (2004) 236 LSJS 1, 17–18 (Mullighan J).

[72] [2003] NSWCA 375 (Unreported, Mason P, Handley JA and Young CJ in Eq, 17 December 2003) [26].

[73] Ibid [55].

[74] Dyno [2003] NSWCA 375 (Unreported, Mason P, Handley JA and Young CJ in Eq, 17 December 2003) was a case in which it was obvious that PNG law applied, and thus amendments to the pleadings to identify the lex causae were not strictly necessary.

[75] Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk [No 2] [2005] FCA 1307 (Unreported, Hely J, 16 September 2005) [68].

[76] [2004] FCA 807 (Unreported, Sackville J, 25 June 2004).

[77] Ibid [20].

[78] [2004] FCA 571 (Unreported, Bennett J, 7 May 2004).

[79] Ibid [94].

[80] See, eg, the early use of Chinese law in Re Will of John Lee Hing [1901] NSWStRp 38; (1901) 18 WN (NSW) 239, and Japanese law in Bowden Bros & Co v Imperial Marine & Transport Insurance Co [1905] NSWStRp 92; (1905) 5 SR (NSW) 614.

[81] Mills v Commonwealth [2003] NSWSC 794; [2003] Aust Torts Reports 81-714 (Cambodia); Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331 (PRC); Penn v Caprioglio (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Wodak, 12 September 2002) (England); Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491 (France, but note that the High Court specifically drew attention to the paucity of evidence on this point: at 500 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ)); Morgan v Union Shipping (NZ) Ltd [2001] NSWSC 325 (Unreported, Sperling J, 4 May 2001); affd Union Shipping New Zealand Ltd v Morgan [2002] NSWCA 124; (2002) 54 NSWLR 690 (NZ); Amaca Pty Ltd v Frost [2006] NSWCA 173 (Unreported, Spigelman CJ, Santow and McColl JJA, 4 July 2006) (NZ); Puttick [2006] VSC 370 (Unreported, Harper J, 13 October 2006) (NZ); Dyno [2003] NSWCA 375 (Unreported, Mason P, Handley JA and Young CJ in Eq, 17 December 2003) (PNG).

[82] New Zealand Pelt Export Co Ltd v Trade Indemnity New Zealand Ltd [2002] VSC 570 (Unreported, Warren J, 18 December 2002) (NZ); Rataplan Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 56 ATR 407 (‘Rataplan’) (US, Texas); O’Driscoll [2006] WASCA 25 (Unreported, Malcolm CJ, McLure JA and Murray AJA, 22 February 2006) (Singapore); Hume Computers Pty Ltd v Exact International BV [2006] FCA 1440 (Unreported, Jacobson J, 25 October 2006) (Netherlands); Garsec v His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei [2007] NSWSC 882 (Unreported, McDougall J, 15 August 2007) (Brunei).

[83] Goldwyn v Mazal [2003] NSWSC 427 (Unreported, Bryson J, 16 May 2003) (Israel); Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1587; (2005) 228 ALR 174 (Vanuatu).

[84] China Construction Realty Ltd v Sino Business Services Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 91 (Unreported, Byrne J, 26 March 2004) (PRC); Power v Tabain [2006] WASC 59 (Unreported, Simmonds J, 5 April 2006) (Croatia).

[85] Arkin v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1629; (2002) 43 ACSR 610 (Canada, Ontario); Granite Springs Pty Ltd v Intercooler Water Dispensers Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 224 (Unreported, Warren J, 5 June 2000) (Canada, Quebec); Western Ventures Pty Ltd v Resource Equities Ltd [2005] WASC 53; (2005) 53 ACSR 568 (PRC, Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region); Walter Rau Neusser Oel und Fett AG v Cross Pacific Trading Ltd [2005] FCA 1102 (Unreported, Allsop J, 15 August 2005) (Cook Islands); Yoon v Song [2000] NSWSC 1147; (2000) 158 FLR 295 (Korea); International Entertainment (Aust) Pty Ltd v Churchill [2002] QSC 317 (Unreported, Holmes J, 11 October 2002) (NZ); Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky [2006] QSC 66; (2006) 57 ACSR 389 (Nigeria); SPI Spirits (Cyprus) Ltd v Diageo Australia Ltd [No 2] [2006] FCA 931; (2006) 155 FCR 150 (Russia); Dachser [2000] NSWSC 1049 (Unreported, Rolfe J, 16 November 2000) (Switzerland); Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 406 (Unreported, Hely J, 8 April 2005) (Vanuatu).

[86] OW Bunker & Trading Co Ltd A/S v ‘Mawashi Al Gasseem’ [2005] FCA 1041 (Unreported, Finn J, 26 July 2005) (Denmark).

[87] Re S A Cryonic Medical [2002] VSC 338 (Unreported, Nettle J, 22 August 2002) (France); DrillTec [2002] NSWSC 1173 (Unreported, Macready AJ, 10 December 2002) (Germany); Penhall-Jones v Stiftung Ausbildungsfonds Jung’she Psychologie [2004] NSWSC 789 (Unreported, Hoeben J, 24 August 2004) (‘Penhall-Jones’) (Switzerland).

[88] Martech International Pty Ltd v Energy World Corporation Ltd [2006] FCA 1004 (Unreported, French J, 3 August 2006) (India); Gilsan (International) Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd [No 2] [2005] NSWSC 38 (Unreported, McDougall J, 11 February 2005) (US); BHP Billiton Ltd v Oil Basins Ltd [2006] VSC 402 (Unreported, Hargrave J, 1 November 2006) (US, New York).

[89] S and D [2005] FamCA 1035 (Unreported, Warnick J, 13 October 2005) (PRC); DP v Commonwealth Central Authority (2001) 206 CLR 401 (Greece); Hooshmand and Ghasmezadegan [2000] FamCA 1075; [2000] FLC 93-043 (Iran); Lo Surdo v Public Trustee [2003] NSWSC 837 (Unreported, Hamilton J, 17 September 2003) (Italy); Lo Surdo v Public Trustee [2005] NSWSC 1186 (Unreported, Hamilton J, 23 November 2005) (Italy); EJK and TSL [2006] FamCA 730; (2006) 35 Fam LR 559 (Korea); JVH and ACNG [2006] FMCA Fam 551 (Unreported, Lapthorn FM, 15 September 2006) (Singapore).

[90] Murakami v Murakami [2005] NSWSC 953 (Unreported, Windeyer J, 26 September 2005) (Indonesia); Gray v Gray (2004) 12 BPR 22 755 (NZ); Re Will of Ulvstig (Dec’d) [2000] QSC 66 (Unreported, Williams J, 24 March 2000) (Sweden).

[91] MZXLT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 799 (Unreported, McInnis FM, 29 May 2007); SZBPQ v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 1015 (Unreported, Raphael FM, 22 December 2004) (PRC); Re SRPP [2000] AATA 878; (2000) 62 ALD 758 (Indonesia and Portugal); Applicants in V 722 of 2000 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1059 (Unreported, Ryan J, 18 September 2002) (Italy).

[92] Appellant V324 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 259 (Unreported, Hill, Stone and Allsop JJ, 20 September 2004) (PRC); Zeng v The Queen [2005] NSWSC 1344 (Unreported, McClellan CJ at CL, 16 December 2005) (PRC); Von Arnim v Federal Republic of Germany [No 2] [2005] FCA 662 (Unreported, Finkelstein J, 3 June 2005) (Germany); Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [No 2] [2001] FCA 327 (Unreported, Heerey J, 30 March 2001) (India); SZCAQ v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 229 (Unreported, Raphael FM, 24 February 2006) (India); Aala v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 204 (Unreported, Gray, Carr and Goldberg JJ, 21 June 2002) (Iran); Madafferi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 220; (2002) 118 FCR 326 (Italy); R v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 638; (2006) 199 FLR 328 (Pakistan); Dutton v O’Shane [2003] FCAFC 195; (2003) 200 ALR 710 (South Africa); Mokbel [2006] VSC 137 (Unreported, Gillard J, 16 March 2006) (US); Evans v European Bank Ltd [2004] NSWCA 82; (2004) 61 NSWLR 75 (Vanuatu); Savic v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1787 (Unreported, Mansfield J, 18 December 2001) (Yugoslavia).

[93] Boele v Norsemeter Holding AS [2002] NSWCA 363 (Unreported, Handley, Beazley and Giles JJA, 13 November 2002) (Norway); Schnabel v Yung Lui [2002] NSWSC 15 (Unreported, Bergin J, 1 February 2002) (US).

[94] Channar Mining Pty Ltd v CMIEC (Channar) Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 253 (Unreported, Pullin J, 18 December 2003) (PRC); Standard Commodities Pty Ltd v Société Socinter Department Centragel [2005] NSWSC 294; (2005) 54 ACSR 489 (France); Rasmussen v Eltrax Systems Pty Ltd [No 4] [2006] NSW IR Comm 225 (Unreported, Marks J, 14 July 2006) (US, Georgia and Minnesota); McGrath v National Indemnity Co [2004] NSWSC 391; (2004) 182 FLR 309 (US, Nebraska).

[95] Gray v Gray (2004) 12 BPR 22 755; O’Driscoll [2006] WASCA 25 (Unreported, Malcolm CJ, McLure JA and Murray AJA, 22 February 2006) (Singapore); Neufeld [2002] NSWCA 335 (Unreported, Spigelman CJ, Hodgson and Beazley JJA, 2 October 2002) (US, California).

[96] Fina Research SA v Halliburton Energy Services Inc [2002] FCA 1331 (Unreported, Moore J, 29 October 2002) (Belgium); MindShare Communications Ltd v Orleans Investments Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 521 (Unreported, Katz J, 20 April 2000) (PRC, HK SAR); Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc [No 2] [2002] FCA 258 (Unreported, Heerey J, 27 February 2002) (France); Compagnie Maritime [2005] FCA 1063 (Unreported, Kiefel J, 3 August 2005) (France); Limberis v N Limberis & Sons Pty Ltd [2004] SASC 186 (Unreported, Gray J, 25 June 2004) (Greece); Soh v Commonwealth [2006] FCA 575; (2006) 231 ALR 425 (Korea); Aopi v Rapke [2002] NSWSC 711 (Unreported, Levine J, 15 August 2002) (PNG).

[97] Raveh v The Official Receiver of the State of Israel in His Capacity as Liquidator North America Bank Ltd (in liq) [2002] WASCA 27 (Unreported, Parker and Templeman JJ and Olsson AUJ, 27 February 2002) (Israel).

[98] Australian Power & Water Pty Ltd v Independent Public Business Corporation of Papua New Guinea [2003] NSWSC 1227 (Unreported, McDougall J, 19 December 2003) (PNG).

[99] For an early English expression of the doctrine: see Mostyn v Fabrigas (1774) 1 Cowp 160, 174; [1774] EngR 104; 98 ER 1021, 1028 (Lord Mansfield).

[100] Fentiman, above n 7, 5, 66–7. Nussbaum proposes an alternative historical reason, namely that ‘[t]he type of case which first induced English courts to take cognizance of foreign law … makes it clear that it was not foreign law as such but its formative role in a given setting of facts which was contemplated by the courts’, and that a ‘factual’ tradition was thereby created: Nussbaum, above n 6, 249.

[101] Joseph H Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (1935) vol 1, 53.

[102] Parkasho v Singh [1968] P 233, 250 (Cairns J).

[103] Cf the observation of Williams J in Baron de Bode’s Case that ‘[t]here is, in [foreign law], little analogy with the proof of facts ordinarily so called’: [1845] EngR 8; (1845) 8 QB 208, 260; [1845] EngR 8; 115 ER 854, 873.

[104] Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 176; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 176; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 63A; Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) s 176; Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas) s 36; Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 39; Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) s 172. Oddly, neither Queensland nor the NT have such a provision. See also R v Hammer [1923] 2 KB 786, discussing Administration of Justice Act 1920 (UK) c 81, s 20.

[105] [2006] VSC 137 (Unreported, Gillard J, 16 March 2006) [19].

[106] Parkasho v Singh [1968] P 233.

[107] Aala v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 204 (Unreported, Gray, Carr and Goldberg JJ, 21 June 2002); Channar Mining Pty Ltd v CMIEC (Channar) Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 253 (Unreported, Pullin J, 18 December 2003); European Bank Ltd v Citibank Ltd [2004] NSWCA 76; (2004) 60 NSWLR 153; Gilsan (International) Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd [No 2] [2005] NSWSC 38 (Unreported, McDougall J, 11 February 2005); S and D [2005] FamCA 1035 (Unreported, Warnick J, 13 October 2005); O’Driscoll [2006] WASCA 25 (Unreported, Malcolm CJ, McLure JA and Murray AJA, 22 February 2006); Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Gilsan (International) Ltd [2006] NSWCA 171 (Unreported, Beazley, Hodgson and McColl JJA, 5 July 2006).

[108] See, eg, United States Trust Co of New York v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1995) 37 NSWLR 131, 148 (Sheller JA), referring to Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 75A(8).

[109] [1844] EngR 822; (1844) 11 Cl & F 85, 115; [1844] EngR 822; 8 ER 1034, 1046. But see below Part VI on the modern modes of proof.

[110] This point is significant in Australian migration law: see, eg, Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [No 2] [2001] FCA 327 (Unreported, Heerey J, 30 March 2001). However, it is also important in those European jurisdictions whose highest courts proceed by way of cassation for error of law alone: Wolff, above n 9, 223. A similar issue arises on appeal from arbitrators’ decisions: cf Re Independent State of Papua New Guinea [No 2] [2001] 2 Qd R 162; BHP Billiton Ltd v Oil Basins Ltd [2006] VSC 402 (Unreported, Hargrave J, 1 November 2006).

[111] See, eg, Furness Withy (Australia) Pty Ltd v Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd; The Amazonia [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 236; Shamil Bank of Bahrain EC v Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 291; [2004] 1 WLR 1784. But see David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48; (1992) 175 CLR 353; Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1998] UKHL 38; [1999] 2 AC 349.

[112] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 370 (Gummow and Hayne JJ). But see Puttick [2006] VSC 370 (Unreported, Harper J, 13 October 2006) [35], implausibly suggesting that a local decision on foreign law could be ‘binding on Australian courts’.

[113] [1933] AC 279, 297–8.

[114] That section prevents any proceedings ‘in any court in New Zealand’ arising out of personal injury, otherwise than in accordance with the Act. In NSW, this has been held to be a substantive bar on proceedings even outside New Zealand (Amaca Pty Ltd v Frost [2006] NSWCA 173 (Unreported, Spigelman CJ, Santow and McColl JJA, 4 July 2006)), whereas in Victoria it is no bar and does ‘no more than recognise that the New Zealand Parliament cannot prevent claims being made in foreign jurisdictions’: Puttick [2006] VSC 370 (Unreported, Harper J, 13 October 2006) [30]. Harper J in fact referred to s 394 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (NZ), but it seems clear that his Honour had in mind the predecessor of that statute, namely the Accident Insurance Act 1998 (NZ).

[115] Fentiman, above n 7, 223.

[116] Wolff, above n 9, 217.

[117] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure r 44.1 (2005) provides that ‘[t]he court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court’s determination shall be treated as a ruling on a question of law.’

[118] Martin Davies, ‘Renvoi and Presumptions about Foreign Law’ [2006] MelbULawRw 8; (2006) 30 Melbourne University Law Review 244, 265.

[119] The forerunner of the present ss 174–5 of the uniform Evidence Acts was s 11 of the Criminal Law and Evidence Amendment Act 1891 (NSW), which was drawn from the Code of Procedure 1848 (New York) s 426. See John Townshend (ed), The Code of Procedure of the State of New York (7th ed, 1860), referred to in the marginal note to the 1891 NSW Act. The historical curiosity is that the current Australian legislation is derived from US and New Zealand models, but not from s 38 of Sir James Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act 1872. That Act also forms the basis of the law in much of South and Southeast Asia: see, eg, Evidence Act 1950 (Malaysia) s 38; Evidence Act 1990 (Singapore) c 97, s 40.

[120] In other words, Cuba Railroad Co v Crosby, 22 US 473 (1912) is no longer good law: see Charles Allen Wright and Arthur R Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (2nd ed, 1995) vol 9, 658–60 and the cases there cited. As in Australia, the modern US position is that in the absence of proof of foreign law, local law can apply by default: see, eg, Vishipco Line v Chase Manhattan Bank NA, [1981] USCA2 790; 660 F 2d 854 (2nd Cir, 1981); Bartsch v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc, [1968] USCA2 117; 391 F 2d 150 (2nd Cir, 1968).

[121] As Albert A Ehrenzweig notes, the complexity of the US approach to the ‘factual’ nature of foreign law stems in large part from the consequences of accepting, and then rejecting, the ‘vested rights’ approach to private international law: Albert A Ehrenzweig, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (1961) 360–1. Of course, Ehrenzweig’s own view of the status of foreign law is very much coloured by his lex fori approach generally.

[122] Nygh and Davies, above n 4, 329.

[123] P E Nygh, Conflict of Laws in Australia (4th ed, 1984) 200, citing United States Surgical Corp v Hospital Products International Pty Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, McLelland J, 19 April 1982) (‘Hospital Products’). The actual citation in Nygh is to [1982] Australian Current Law Digest 350.

[124] See, eg, National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corporation (1989) 22 FCR 209 (a decision of Gummow J, who was likely to have had a better recollection of Hospital Products (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, McLelland J, 19 April 1982) than most); United States Trust Co of New York v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1995) 37 NSWLR 131, 146 (Sheller JA); Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [No 6] (1996) 64 FCR 79, 82 (Lindgren J); Dachser [2000] NSWSC 1049 (Unreported, Rolfe J, 16 November 2000) [39]; Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1077; (2000) 50 NSWLR 640, 644 (Einstein J, another judge likely to have a good recollection of Hospital Products); Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 371 (Gummow and Hayne JJ); Hermanowski v United States of America [2006] FCAFC 8; (2006) 149 FCR 93, 126 (Gyles, Conti and Graham JJ); Mokbel [2006] VSC 137 (Unreported, Gillard J, 16 March 2006) [13]–[15]. Also, a notably early endorsement of the principle was the decision of Powell J in Scruples Imports Pty Ltd v Crabtree & Evelyn Pty Ltd (1983) 1 IPR 315.

[125] The decision has never been reported, although it is often mistaken for the one reported at [1982] 2 NSWLR 766: see, eg, P E Nygh, Conflict of Laws in Australia (6th ed, 1995) 268; Martin Davies, Sam Ricketson and Geoffrey Lindell, Conflict of Laws: Commentary and Materials (1997) 411. The correct judgment is exceedingly difficult to obtain: it is not accessible through the normal electronic repositories of unreported judgments, and it appears to be available only from the Law Courts Library in Sydney. I am therefore very grateful to the staff of the Allens Arthur Robinson library in Sydney for their assistance in obtaining a copy.

[126] Hospital Products (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, McLelland J, 19 April 1982) 1–2.

[127] Ibid 2.

[128] [1863] EngR 875; (1863) 10 HLC 624; 11 ER 1168.

[129] Hospital Products (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, McLelland J, 19 April 1982) 2.

[130] [1954] 1 Ch 672.

[131] Hospital Products (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, McLelland J, 19 April 1982) 2.

[132] Di Sora [1863] EngR 875; (1863) 10 HLC 624, 627; [1863] EngR 875; 11 ER 1168, 1169. Subsequent cases have cited Di Sora as authority on the parol evidence rule: see, eg, Life Insurance Co of Australia Ltd v Phillips [1925] HCA 18; (1925) 36 CLR 60, 79 (Isaacs J); B & B Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Brian A Cheeseman & Associates Pty Ltd (1994) 35 NSWLR 227, 244 (Mahoney JA); cf Yu Feng Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council [2000] 1 Qd R 306, 342 (Pincus JA).

[133] Di Sora [1863] EngR 875; (1863) 10 HLC 624, 633; [1863] EngR 875; 11 ER 1168, 1172.

[134] Ibid 638; 1174.

[135] Ibid 639; 1174.

[136] Dicey and Morris, above n 7, 265. See also Fentiman, above n 7, 178, 251–7. On the construction of documents: see, eg, King v Brandywine Reinsurance Co [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 655,

669–70 (Waller LJ); Evialis SA v SIAT [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 377, 387 (Andrew Smith J). On the application of foreign law more generally: see, eg, Glencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 284, 300 (Moore-Bick J).

[137] [1954] 1 Ch 672, 692 (Evershed MR).

[138] Ibid 709 (Jenkins LJ).

[139] A/S Tallinna Laevauhisus v Estonian State Steamship Line (1946) 80 Ll L Rep 99, 107 (Scott LJ).

[140] Di Sora [1863] EngR 875; (1863) 10 HLC 624, 638; [1863] EngR 875; 11 ER 1168, 1174.

[141] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 369.

[142] Ibid 392–3.

[143] As Einstein J noted in Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1077; (2000) 50 NSWLR 640, 644, the supposed rule means that in a case where a discretion arises under foreign law, ‘evidence of how a discretion would in fact be exercised in the instant case would not be admissible.’

[144] Cf National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corporation (1989) 22 FCR 209.

[145] Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [No 6] (1996) 64 FCR 79, 83.

[146] Ibid.

[147] Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [No 12] [2000] NSWSC 1077; (2000) 50 NSWLR 640, 657.

[148] Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 80(a); Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 80(a); Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) s 80(a).

[149] Cf Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 371.

[150] On the modern form of the rule: see LexisNexis, Cross on Evidence, vol 1 (at 83) 29 105–25.

[151] That said, a handful of contrary examples can be found in which adventurous Australian judges have undertaken their own research into foreign law: see, eg, Moonlighting International Pty Ltd v International Lighting Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 41 (Unreported, Finkelstein J, 31 January 2000); European Bank Ltd v Citibank Ltd [2004] NSWCA 76; (2004) 60 NSWLR 153; We Two Pty Ltd v Shorrock [No 2] [2005] FCA 934; (2005) 220 ALR 749. On the European position: see generally Geeroms, above n 9, ch 2; Hartley, above n 9.

[152] See, eg, Gilson v Republic of Ireland, 606 F Supp 38 (D DC, 1984); affd 787 F 2d 655 (DC Cir, 1985); Clarkson Co Ltd v Shaheen, [1981] USCA2 740; 660 F 2d 506 (2nd Cir, 1988); Seattle Totems Hockey Club Inc v National Hockey League, [1986] USCA9 383; 783 F 2d 1347 (9th Cir, 1986); Luckett v Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 618 F 2d 2373 (10th Cir, 1980).

[153] This is perhaps the true significance of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure r 44.1 (2005). That rule allows the court to consider ‘any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence’. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to overstate the degree to which that rule has altered US practice in cases governed by foreign law. In most such cases, US judges ascertain foreign law by techniques that would be familiar to their Australian counterparts: see, eg, Committee on International Commercial Dispute Resolution, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Proof of Foreign Law after Four Decades with Rule 44.1 FRCP and CPLR 4511 (2006). See also Ganem v Heckler, [1984] USCADC 405; 746 F 2d 844, 853–4 (Mikva J) (DC Cir, 1984). For an example of expert evidence being received on Australian law: see Conservation Council of Western Australia Inc v Aluminum Co of America, 518 F Supp 270 (WD Pa, 1981).

[154] For example, in Hong Kong, traditional Chinese law and custom has the force of domestic law in some circumstances. Nonetheless, its content is proven by expert evidence. For a colourful illustration: see Suen Toi Lee v Yau Yee Ping [2001] HKCFA 21; [2002] 1 HKLRD 197.

[155] One might add that this returns the law to the position that existed prior to Baron de Bode’s Case: see John Westlake, A Treatise on Private International Law (1st ed, 1858) 394. The inability to tender statutes without expert evidence was one mischief that led to the enactment of the Evidence Amendment Act 1891 (NSW). Regarding that mischief: see Graham v Proudfoot (1886) 2 WN (NSW) 109.

[156] Evidence and Procedure (New Zealand) Act 1994 (Cth) pt 6. This provides all courts with a simplified means of establishing the content of NZ statutory materials and other public documents. See, eg, Wenceslas [2007] FamCA 398 (Unreported, Finn, May and Thackray JJ, 30 April 2007).

[157] Nygh and Davies, above n 4, 329–34; Mortensen, above n 4, 230–2.

[158] The statutory provisions modify but do not oust the common law, and expert evidence is thus still admissible on points covered by the statute: Subbotovsky v Waung [1968] 2 NSWLR 261.

[159] Applicants in V 722 of 2000 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1059 (Unreported, Ryan J, 18 September 2002) [33]. This statement has been approved subsequently: see, eg, VHAJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 186; (2003) 131 FCR 80; VSAB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 239 (Unreported, Weinberg J, 17 March 2006). But see Boele v Norsemeter Holding AS [2002] NSWCA 363 (Unreported, Handley, Beazley and Giles JJA, 13 November 2002), in which the appellant suggested that notwithstanding s 174 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) evidence of foreign statutes could only be tendered by an appropriately qualified expert. While Giles JA did not accede to this argument, it seems to have given his Honour some pause for thought: at [34]. See also Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 406 (Unreported, Hely J, 8 April 2005) (tender of Vanuatu statutes).

[160] Law Reform Commission, Evidence, Interim Report No 26 (1985); Law Reform Commission, Evidence, Report No 38 (1987). The relevant provisions of the ACT legislation in turn appear to have been derived from their NSW counterparts.

[161] See Geoff Bellamy and Peter Meibusch, Civil Law Division, Attorney-General’s Legal Practice, Commonwealth Evidence Law (1995) 154.

[162] Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 174; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 174; Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) s 174.

[163] MindShare Communications Ltd v Orleans Investments Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 521 (Unreported, Katz J, 20 April 2000) (Hong Kong); Rasmussen v Eltrax Systems Pty Ltd [No 4] [2006] NSWIRComm 225 (Unreported, Marks J, 14 July 2006) (US, Minnesota and Georgia). See also R v Turner [No 4] [2001] TASSC 51; (2001) 10 Tas R 81, in which Blow J relied on s 40 of the Evidence and Procedure (New Zealand) Act 1994 (Cth) to use the internet in order to inform himself of a NZ statute. Curiously, his Honour also seemed to think that s 175 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) was relevant to the case, presumably because it was in federal jurisdiction. However, that Act applies to federal courts, not to non-federal courts exercising federal jurisdiction.

[164] In Marriage of Khademollah [2000] FamCA 1045; (2000) 159 FLR 42, 85 (Kay and Holden JJ). In that case, a document issued by the Iranian Embassy in Canberra listing the requirements before it would register a foreign decree did not amount to proof of the Iranian law of divorce as it was not a statute, regulation or by-law.

[165] Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Gilsan (International) Ltd [2006] NSWCA 171 (Unreported, Beazley, Hodgson and McColl JJA, 5 July 2006) [89] (Hodgson JA). One imagines that such a presumption will be more easily applied in the case of enduring texts like European civil codes as compared with more ephemeral sources of law.

[166] Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 175; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 175; Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) s 175. Subsection 2 of s 175 responds to the defect in the Evidence Amendment Act 1891 (NSW), which was revealed in Homeward Bound Gold Mining Co NL v McPherson (1896) 17 NSWR 281.

[167] Cf Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 63; Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 71.

[168] Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Gilsan (International) Ltd [2006] NSWCA 171 (Unreported, Beazley, Hodgson and McColl JJA, 5 July 2006) [87] (Hodgson JA).

[169] For example, one can scarcely imagine that evidence would ever need to be given that the All England Reports or the Dominion Law Reports are used by the courts of England and Canada respectively, despite the fact that neither is an authorised report. Law reports from civil law jurisdictions would raise more complex questions: given the low precedential value of case law in France, could judicial notice be taken of the way the Recueil Dalloz is used by the French courts, or would evidence need to be tendered on this point?

[170] Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 63; Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 71.

[171] Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 70. See, eg, Hooshmand and Ghasmezadegan [2000] FamCA 1075; [2000] FLC 93-043.

[172] Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 68(f).

[173] Evidence Act 1939 (NT) s 63(1).

[174] Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 63 and Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 70 refer to ‘statutes, ordinances or other written laws’; Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 68(a) refers to a ‘statute, proclamation, treaty or act of state’; and Evidence Act 1939 (NT) s 63 refers to a ‘statute, code or other written law’. It has been held under the former Evidence Act 1898 (NSW) that ‘written law’ encompassed regulations and orders made under statute: Walt Disney Productions v H John Edward Publishing Co Pty Ltd (1954) 71 WN (NSW) 150. Cf s 174(2) of the uniform Evidence Acts.

[175] To take but one example, Italian law has an astonishing hierarchy of normative texts (Legge, Decreto Legge, Decreto Legislativo, Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica, Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri, Decreto Interministeriale, Decreto Ministeriale and Circolare), not all of which are statutes passed by Parliament. Nonetheless it seems doubtful that a Queensland court would reject proof of an Italian law merely because it was not a ‘statute’.

[176] Evidence Act 1939 (NT) s 63(2).

[177] Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 63; Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 71.

[178] These provisions share a common history: all are ultimately derived from s 4 of the Evidence Further Amendment Act 1885 (NZ). That provision was re-enacted as s 40 of the Evidence Act 1905 (NZ) and again as s 40 of the present Evidence Act 1908 (NZ). Section 71 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) was directly copied from the 1905 NZ Act. Section 71 of the WA Act was in turn copied by s 21 of the Evidence Amendment Act 1925 (SA), which was re-enacted as the present s 63 of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA).

[179] [2004] 1 NZLR 289.

[180] Ibid 308 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).

[181] Ibid 309 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).

[182] See, eg, Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd [2006] VSC 175 (Unreported, Hollingworth J, 4 December 2006) [76]. But see Penn v Caprioglio (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Wodak, 12 September 2002) for an example of the use of foreign law apparently without expert proof.

[183] Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 53(1)(b).

[184] Evidence Act 1958 (Vic) ss 59–61, 77. The inclusion of NZ and Fiji is a curious relic of the era of the Federal Council of Australasia. These provisions first entered Victorian law as the Evidence Act 1898 (Vic). Cf Federal Council Evidence Act 1886 49 Vict 2 (Federal Council of Australasia). The limited scope of the latter Act was made clear in: Guthrie v Guthrie [1890] VicLawRp 57; (1890) 16 VLR 280; Picturesque Atlas Co Ltd v Searle [1892] VicLawRp 141; (1892) 18 VLR 633.

[185] Sussex Peerage Case [1844] EngR 822; (1844) 11 Cl & F 85; 8 ER 1034; Baron de Bode’s Case [1845] EngR 8; (1845) 8 QB 208; 115 ER 854.

[186] Likewise, experts on foreign law must comply with the courts’ usual procedures for dealing with expert testimony: see, eg, Arkin v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1629; (2002) 43 ACSR 610.

[187] See, eg, Clyne v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [No 2] (1981) 57 FLR 198, in which a Sydney barrister was insufficiently qualified to give evidence on Liechtenstein law.

[188] See, eg, Mills v Commonwealth [2003] NSWSC 794; [2003] Aust Torts Reports 81-714, a case concerning Cambodian civil law in which it appeared that neither expert had ever practised civil law. See also Hooshmand and Ghasmezadegan [2000] FamCA 1075; [2000] FLC 93-043, where Penny J admitted testimony on Iranian law from a lawyer practising in WA who, although born in Iran, had left that country at 10 years of age and had never practised there. The witness’s testimony was admitted in part because it was buttressed by written sources of Iranian law admitted under s 71 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA): see above Part VII(B).

[189] Power v Tabain [2006] WASC 59 (Unreported, Simmons J, 5 April 2006).

[190] Re SRPP [2000] AATA 878; (2000) 62 ALD 758 (an Australian professor of Indonesian law and a Portuguese professor of international refugee law); Dachser [2000] NSWSC 1049 (Unreported, Rolfe J, 16 November 2000) (reliance on the opinion of Swiss professors); Arkin v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1629; (2002) 43 ACSR 610 (Canadian professor); Lo Surdo v Public Trustee [2003] NSWSC 837 (Unreported, Hamilton J, 17 September 2003) (Italian professor); China Construction Realty Ltd v Sino Business Services Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 91 (Unreported, Byrne J, 26 March 2004) (Chinese professor who also practised privately); Rataplan (2004) 56 ATR 407 (US professors); Re Murakami; Murakami v Murakami [2005] NSWSC 953 (Unreported, Windeyer J, 26 September 2005) (Australian professor of Indonesian law); O’Driscoll [2006] WASCA 25 (Unreported, Malcolm CJ, McLure JA and Murray AJA, 22 February 2006) (Singaporean professor).

[191] See, eg, Mond v Berger [2004] VSC 45; (2004) 10 VR 534 (US professor of Rabbinical law); S and D [2005] FamCA 1035 (Unreported, Warnick J, 13 October 2005) (Chinese professor); Mokbel [2006] VSC 137 (16 March 2006) (US professor).

[192] Nelson v Bridport [1845] EngR 1210; (1845) 8 Beav 527, 539–41; [1845] EngR 1210; 50 ER 207, 212 (Lord Langdale MR); Lazard Bros & Co v Midland Bank Ltd [1933] AC 289, 208 (Lord Wright).

[193] Guaranty Trust of New York v Hannay & Co [1918] 2 KB 623, 638 (Pickford LJ), 667 (Scrutton LJ); Bumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1991] 1 WLR 1362, 1368–71 (Purchas LJ).

[194] See, eg, Islamic Republic of Iran v Berend [2007] EWHC 132 (QB) (Unreported, Eady J, 1 February 2007).

[195] Cf Justice P W Young, ‘English and Australian Law as to Trusts Affecting Shares’ (1998) 72 Australian Law Journal 116, 117. Justice Young’s comments were directed at the use of such evidence in English litigation concerning Australian law: Re Harvard Securities Ltd [1997] EWHC Comm 371; [1997] 2 BCLC 369, 384–5 (Neuberger J). As it turns out, the experts’ prediction may not have been accurate: see White v Shortall [2006] NSWSC 1379; (2006) 206 FLR 254.

[196] See, eg, Dachser [2000] NSWSC 1049 (Unreported, Rolfe J, 16 November 2000) (Swiss law); Schnabel v Yung Lui [2002] NSWSC 15 (Unreported, Bergin J, 1 February 2002) (US federal law); DrillTec [2002] NSWSC 1173 (Unreported, Macready AJ, 10 December 2002) (German law); Rataplan (2004) 56 ATR 407 (Texas law).

[197] See, eg, Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 75; Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) r 43.03(2).

[198] OW Bunker & Trading Co Ltd A/S v ‘Mawashi Al Gasseem’ [2005] FCA 1041 (Unreported, Finn J, 26 July 2005) (Danish law); Anabelle Bits Pty Ltd v Fujitsu Ltd [2007] FCA 1190 (Unreported, Graham J, 26 July 2007) (Japanese law). Cf Raveh v The Official Receiver of the State of Israel in His capacity as Liquidator North America Bank Ltd (in liq) [2002] WASCA 27 (Unreported, Parker and Templeman JJ and Olsson AUJ, 27 February 2002), in which the sufficiency of such evidence was doubted.

[199] Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc [No 2] [2002] FCA 258 (Unreported, Heerey J, 27 February 2002).

[200] Norsemeter Holding AS v Boele [No 1] [2002] NSWSC 370 (Unreported, Einstein J, 19 April 2002).

[201] Savic v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1787 (Unreported, Mansfield J, 18 December 2001).

[202] NAFG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 152; (2003) 131 FCR 57.

[203] VSAB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 239 (Unreported, Weinberg J, 17 March 2006).

[204] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 394.

[205] Ibid 370.

[206] [2003] NSWSC 794; [2003] Aust Torts Reports 81-714, 64 405 (Master Malpass).

[207] Lo Surdo v Public Trustee [2003] NSWSC 837 (Unreported, Hamilton J, 17 September 2003) [7]–[8].

[208] DrillTec [2002] NSWSC 1173 (Unreported, Macready AJ, 10 December 2002) [22]; Channar Mining Pty Ltd v CMIEC (Channar) Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 253 (Unreported, Pullin J, 18 December 2003) [21].

[209] Notice that art 146 appears to adopt three simultaneous and contradictory choice of law rules: a strict lex loci delicti rule in the first clause; an ‘interests analysis’-style flexible exception in the second clause (cf Babcock v Jackson, 191 NE 2d 279 (NY, 1963)); and a double actionability rule in the third clause (cf Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1).

[210] I am very grateful to Chris Carr for his assistance on this point. Contrast the translation cited in Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331 with the apparently official translation available from the site of the Chinese National People’s Congress: National People’s Congress <http://www.npc.gov.cn/

zgrdw/english/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=2204&articleId=344984>. The original Chinese text can be consulted at <http://www.law-lib.com/law/law_view.asp?id=3633 & page=6> .

[211] When they were drafted in 1986, the General Principles were among the very first civil laws enacted in the PRC. Chinese drafting technique has certainly grown in sophistication since that time.

[212] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 349.

[213] Ibid 389–91 (Kirby J), 404–6 (Callinan J); cf Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2002] WASC 231 (Unreported, McKechnie J, 2 October 2002) [186].

[214] See the authorities collected in Dicey and Morris, above n 7, 263.

[215] See, eg, Goldwyn v Mazal [2003] NSWSC 427 (Unreported, Bryson J, 16 May 2003).

[216] Limberis v N Limberis & Sons Pty Ltd [2004] SASC 186 (Unreported, Gray J, 25 June 2004).

[217] Gilsan (International) Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd [No 2] [2005] NSWSC 38 (Unreported, McDougall J, 11 February 2005); Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [No 2] [2001] FCA 327 (Unreported, Heerey J, 30 March 2001).

[218] Dachser [2000] NSWSC 1049 (Unreported, Rolfe J, 16 November 2000); Mills v Commonwealth [2003] NSWSC 794; [2003] Aust Torts Reports 81-714.

[219] Walter Rau Neusser Oel und Fett AG v Cross Pacific Trading Ltd [2005] FCA 1102 (Unreported, Allsop J, 15 August 2005) [98].

[220] Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky [2006] QSC 66; (2006) 57 ACSR 389, 395 (de Jersey CJ).

[221] Mokbel [2006] VSC 137 (Unreported, Gillard J, 16 March 2006) [34].

[222] Gillard J had in mind legislation equivalent to pt 1AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

[223] Mokbel [2006] VSC 137 (Unreported, Gillard J, 16 March 2006) [34].

[224] Ibid [40].

[225] Ibid [52].

[226] Ibid [53].

[227] Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705. As to the status of this principle: see Lee Aitken, ‘Expert Evidence and Makita — “Gold Standard” or Counsel of Perfection?’ (2006) 28 Australian Bar Review 207.

[228] [2004] VSC 45; (2004) 10 VR 534.

[229] Ibid 561.

[230] Ibid 582–3 (Dodds-Streeton J).

[231] See, eg, Lloyd v Guibert (1865) LR 1 QB 115; The Parchim [1918] AC 157; Nygh and Davies, above n 4, 325–7; Mortensen, above n 4, 226–8. Early Australian cases applying the presumption include: Wright, Heaton & Co v Barrett (1892) 13 NSWR 206; Bowden Bros & Co v Imperial Marine & Transport Insurance Co [1905] NSWStRp 92; (1905) 5 SR (NSW) 614.

[232] In Marriage of Khademollah [2000] FamCA 1045; (2000) 159 FLR 42, 84.

[233] Ibid 85. Despite all this, one can surely sympathise with Finn J’s ‘difficulty in understanding why the question of the differences, if any, between the matrimonial law of Iran and that of Australia was of any great significance in this case’: at 44. The case was a stay application in which it was doubtful that any finding about Iranian law needed to be made at all.

[234] Briggs, The Conflict of Laws, above n 7, 6.

[235] Adrian Briggs, ‘The Meaning and Proof of Foreign Law’ [2006] Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 1, 4.

[236] Wolff, above n 9, 222.

[237] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 395–6 (Kirby J).

[238] Kahn-Freund, above n 9, 279.

[239] Andrew Dickinson, ‘Renvoi: The Comeback Kid?’ (2006) 122 Law Quarterly Review 183, 188.

[240] Briggs, The Conflict of Laws, above n 7, 6.

[241] Sykes and Pryles, above n 4, 276.

[242] J-G Castel, Canadian Conflict of Laws (4th ed, 1997) 162. See generally Dicey and Morris, above n 7, 225–6.

[243] Briggs, The Conflict of Laws, above n 7, 6.

[244] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 370.

[245] Ibid 348–9 (McHugh J), 395–6 (Kirby J).

[246] Ibid 342.

[247] R v Rigney-Hopkins [2005] QCA 275; (2005) 154 A Crim R 433.

[248] Neufeld [2002] NSWCA 335 (Unreported, Spigelman CJ, Hodgson and Beazley JJA, 2 October 2002).

[249] Pico Holdings Inc v Dominion Capital Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 334 (Unreported, Bongiorno J, 30 August 2001).

[250] Eagle v Delta Haze Corporation [2000] VSC 513 (Unreported, Mandie J, 8 December 2000).

[251] Errigal Ltd v Equatorial Mining Ltd [2006] NSWSC 953 (Unreported, White J, 6 September 2006).

[252] World of Technologies (Aust) Pty Ltd v Tempo (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 114; (2007) 71 IPR 307.

[253] Hume Computers Pty Ltd v Exact International BV [2007] FCA 478 (Unreported, Jacobson J, 3 April 2007).

[254] Von Arnim v Federal Republic of Germany [No 2] [2005] FCA 662 (Unreported, Finkelstein J, 3 June 2005).

[255] National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Ltd v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1386; (2006) 156 FCR 148.

[256] Clough Engineering Ltd v Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd [2007] FCA 881 (Unreported, Gilmour J, 7 June 2007).

[257] Re SRPP [2000] AATA 878; (2000) 62 ALD 758.

[258] In Marriage of Khademollah [2000] FamCA 1045; (2000) 159 FLR 42.

[259] Versace v Monte [2001] FCA 1572 (Unreported, Tamberlin J, 6 November 2001).

[260] Proctor & Gamble Pty Ltd v Australian Slatwall Industries Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 398 (Unreported, Bergin J, 18 May 2001).

[261] Tisand Pty Ltd v The Owners of the Ship MV Cape Moreton (Ex Freya) [2005] FCAFC 68; (2005) 143 FCR 43.

[262] Markisic v Today-Denes [2005] NSWSC 1276 (Unreported, Simpson J, 9 December 2005); affd Markisic v AEA Ethnic Publishers Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 378 (Unreported, Beazley, Tobias and Basten JJA, 20 December 2006).

[263] Eagle v Delta Haze Corporation [2000] VSC 513 (Unreported, Mandie J, 8 December 2000).

[264] Versace v Monte [2001] FCA 1572 (Unreported, Tamberlin J, 6 November 2001).

[265] New Zealand Pelt Export Co Ltd v Trade Indemnity New Zealand Ltd [2002] VSC 570 (Unreported, Warren J, 18 December 2002).

[266] Quanta Software International Pty Ltd v Computer Management Services Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1459; [2001] AIPC 91-757.

[267] R v Turner [No 4] [2001] TASSC 51; (2001) 10 Tas R 81.

[268] Hewitt v ATP Tour Inc (2004) 236 LSJS 1.

[269] Joondalup Country Club Holdings Ltd v Basuki [2000] WASC 251 (Unreported, Master Sanderson, 17 October 2000).

[270] Damberg [2001] NSWCA 87; (2001) 52 NSWLR 492.

[271] Boele v Norsemeter Holding AS [2002] NSWCA 363 (Unreported, Handley, Beazley and Giles JJA, 13 November 2002).

[272] Penhall-Jones [2004] NSWSC 789 (Unreported, Hoeben J, 24 August 2004).

[273] Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1587; (2005) 228 ALR 174.

[274] Martyn v Graham [2003] QDC 447 (Unreported, Shanahan DCJ, 13 November 2003).

[275] Cf Fentiman, above n 7, 63:

the problem is not whether English law and foreign law are similar. It is whether litigants are always free to circumvent the foreign element in proceedings. The question is not whether it is plausible to equate English law with foreign laws that which are unlikely to be similar … It is whether the relevant rules for choice of law are mandatory in character.

[276] Markisic v AEA Ethnic Publishers Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 378 (Unreported, Beazley, Tobias and Basten JJA, 20 December 2006) [171] (Tobias JA).

[277] Damberg [2001] NSWCA 87; (2001) 52 NSWLR 492. The presumption of advancement was rebutted by the father’s contrary intention.

[278] Ibid 522 (Heydon JA).

[279] It is true that German law recognises the Treuhand, a form of express trust, but it certainly contains no law of resulting or constructive trusts.

[280] Abgabenordnung (Tax Procedure Act), 1 January 1977, BGBl I S 613, § 42; BFH Urteil, 26 March 1996, IX R 51/92; BFH Urteil, 14 January 2003, IX R 5/00; BFH Urteil, 17 December 2003, IX R 56/03.

[281] Cf Martin v Martin [1959] HCA 62; (1959) 110 CLR 297; Nelson v Nelson [1995] HCA 25; (1995) 184 CLR 538.

[282] [2001] NSWCA 87; (2001) 52 NSWLR 492, 523 (Heydon JA).

[283] Ibid.

[284] Ibid 525 (Heydon JA).

[285] Ibid 522.

[286] Boele v Norsemeter Holding AS [2002] NSWCA 363 (Unreported, Handley, Beazley and Giles JJA, 13 November 2002) [40] (Giles JA).

[287] Penhall-Jones [2004] NSWSC 789 (Unreported, Hoeben J, 24 August 2004). See below Part VII(A)(3).

[288] Cf Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575.

[289] See, eg, Hewitt v ATP Tour Inc (2004) 236 LSJS 1.

[290] Cf BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt [1980] 1 NSWLR 496, 503 (Hunt J).

[291] See, eg, Glencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 284 (meaning of a term completely undefined in the Civil Code of Fujairah); Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v Butcher [1986] 2 All ER 488 (obscure aspects of Norwegian reinsurance law); Re Duke of Wellington [1947] 1 Ch 506 (attitude of the Spanish Supreme Court to renvoi when the only law on the subject was contained in two contradictory decisions of lower courts). Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331 was also such a case.

[292] See, eg, Western Ventures Pty Ltd v Resource Equities Ltd [2005] WASC 53; (2005) 53 ACSR 568.

[293] Cf Fentiman, above n 7, 20: ‘the true measure of any technique for proving foreign law is not its capacity to excavate objective legal truth. It consists merely in its ability to reproduce the circumstances in which law is determined in the foreign jurisdiction whose law is in dispute.’

[294] Briggs, ‘The Meaning and Proof of Foreign Law’, above n 235, 6. By contrast, McHugh J’s suggestion in Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, albeit in dissent, that the tendering of evidence of foreign law automatically debars one from relying on the incidental use of local law seems both unorthodox and unduly strict: at 349.

[295] Cf Kahn-Freund, above n 9, 276–85.

[296] Re SRPP [2000] AATA 878; (2000) 62 ALD 758; Rataplan (2004) 56 ATR 407; R v Rigney-Hopkins [2005] QCA 275; (2005) 154 A Crim R 433; Amaca Pty Ltd v Frost [2006] NSWCA 173 (Unreported, Spigelman CJ, Santow and McColl JJA, 4 July 2006).

[297] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 411 (Callinan J), 419–20 (Heydon J); Joondalup Country Club Holdings Ltd v Basuki [2000] WASC 251 (Unreported, Master Sanderson, 17 October 2000). Cf Jabbour v Custodian of Israeli Absentee Property [1954] 1 All ER 145.

[298] Saxby v Fulton [1909] UKLawRpKQB 75; [1909] 2 KB 208.

[299] Tisand Pty Ltd v The Owners of the Ship MV Cape Moreton (Ex Freya) [2004] FCA 1191; (2004) 141 FCR 29; affd [2005] FCAFC 68; (2005) 143 FCR 43.

[300] Ye v Crown Ltd [2003] FCA 507 (Unreported, Gyles J, 23 May 2003); affd [2004] FCAFC 8 (Unreported, Sackville, Selway and Lander JJ, 23 January 2004); Singh v Singh [2006] WASC 182 (Unreported, Simmonds J, 24 August 2006).

[301] Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Gilsan (International) Ltd [2006] NSWCA 171 (Unreported, Beazley, Hodgson and McColl JJA, 5 July 2006). Cf Wolff, above n 9, 221.

[302] Hartej Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 482 (Unreported, Ryan J, 27 April 2001).

[303] Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Gilsan (International) Ltd [2006] NSWCA 171 (Unreported, Beazley, Hodgson and McColl JJA, 5 July 2006).

[304] National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Ltd v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1386; (2006) 156 FCR 148, 155.

[305] Neilson [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331, 348 (McHugh J); cf at 394–6 (Kirby J).

[306] Cf ibid 353 (McHugh J):

In the absence of evidence, this court would ordinarily assume that Chinese law is identical to Australian law. … [T]he court would presume that Chinese law concerning the applicability of renvoi to the choice of law rule in tort was the same as under Australian law. Hence, if the Australian choice of law in tort selects “the whole of the law of that place”, then the Chinese choice of law in tort would be presumed to select also “the whole of the law” of its chosen country.

[307] Ibid 411 (Callinan J), 419–20 (Heydon J).

[308] Ibid 373–4.

[309] Mokbel [2006] VSC 137 (Unreported, Gillard J, 16 March 2006).

[310] Ibid [47].

[311] [2004] NSWSC 789 (Unreported, Hoeben J, 24 August 2004) [16], [20].

[312] Fentiman, above n 7, 182.

[313] [2003] NSWSC 794; [2003] Aust Torts Reports 81-714, 64 403–4 (Master Malpass).

[314] Ibid 64 405 (Master Malpass).

[315] Ibid 64 406 (Master Malpass).

[316] As it happened, the plaintiff also brought a contractual action against the Commonwealth, but there was also a dispute about the governing law: the contract was held by the Master to be governed by Australian law, but an appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in the application of Cambodian law: Commonwealth v Mills [2004] NSWSC 1042 (Unreported, M W Campbell AJ, 10 November 2004).

[317] Supreme Court Procedure Committee, Lord Chancellor’s Department, United Kingdom, Report on Practice and Procedure in Defamation (1991) 47; cf Fentiman, above n 7, 144; Davies, above n 118, 264.

[318] Eugene F Scoles et al, Conflict of Laws (4th ed, 2004) 544–6, 553–6.

[319] Beale, above n 101, vol 3, 1681.

[320] See generally Fentiman, above n 7, chs 3–4.

[321] See, eg, Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) s 11(2).

[322] Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) s 11(5).