Symposium paper: the Future of Private International Law in Australia.

• Author: Dickinson, Andrew

Abstract

In a seminar held at the University of Sydney on 16 May 2011, four speakers were invited to consider 'The Future of Private International Law in Australia' from different perspectives--judge, lawyer in government, practitioner and academic. Unsurprisingly, given the breadth of the topic, the subject matter of the presentations varied widely. Justice Paul Le Gay Brereton of the New South Wales Supreme Court addressed the difficulties inherent in the proof of foreign law, and recent developments in New South Wales practice in this area. Thomas John of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department considered Australia's approach to the regulation of private international law issues at an international level. Dr Andrew Bell SC of the New South Wales Bar looked at recurring themes and likely future trends in Australian case law in the area. In the final presentation, based on this paper, the author considered two related topics. First, the development and recognition of a unified body of Australian private international law. Second, the case for reform of the currently diverse regimes regulating the personal jurisdiction of courts in Australia. The author argues that the subject has now developed and matured to a point where the label 'Australian private international law' is justified in two of the three key areas: applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of-judgments. He urges reform of federal and state rules governing personal jurisdiction, by a process of harmonisation, in order to complete the last side of the Australian private international law triangle.

Introduction

A lawyer working at a university or other academic institution may contribute in a number of ways to the development of the law. The most important of these roles is that of legal education, encouraging students (among whom will be potential legal practitioners, legislators and judges) to acquire the knowledge and skills they will need in their future careers. In this role, and in undertaking research and writing, academic lawyers enjoy greater flexibility and freedom than their counterparts in legal practice. Whereas the latter, at least in terms of legal principle, must focus on the present, the law teacher may and, indeed, should trace the historical development of the law and suggest its future direction. He or she may also choose, without fear of reproach from the bench, which topics to highlight and which to leave for another day.

Taking full advantage of that liberty, this short paper will consider three topics. First, the teaching of private international law in Australia. Second, the development of a uniform body of 'Australian private international law'. Third, the case for harmonisation of the rules of jurisdiction applied by Australian courts in cases with a foreign connection (that is, a connection to a legal system outside Australia).

The Teaching of Private International Law in Australia

A glance at any reading list for a course on private international law at an Australian university demonstrates that students are required to grapple with a combination of older common law and equitable doctrine, recent judicial innovation, and legislative intervention at federal and state level. In this eclectic mix lies much of the subject's appeal (at least to the author).

There is no doubt that private international in Australia is becoming more and more important over time. As demand for Australia's resources and the skills of the population grow, and as technological innovation facilitates communication and travel between nations, the number of cases brought before Australian courts with an overseas connection (1) has increased significantly in recent years, (2) reflecting an evident global trend. In light of this development, no longer can the study of the ways in which legal systems deal with private law aspects of cross-border transactions and disputes be offered only as a specialist elective in a post-graduate setting. All law students should be exposed to the extra dimensions to which an international element in any dispute gives rise--the recognition that a dispute may be resolved in more than one forum, that a court will not necessarily apply rules of local origin and that a judgment may (or may not) have legal effects outside the system in which it originated.

Happily (at least for those who enjoy the challenges of the subject), the University of Sydney and other Australian universities have recognised this need. Undergraduate students at Sydney Law School have long been exposed to the subject as an element in the general international law course. From 2013, every third-year student in the University's Juris Doctor program will study private international law as a separate, compulsory unit and, from 2015, the subject will be taught to all LLB students as well. Those teaching the course will be able to cover in greater depth, in particular, at the ways in which Australian courts approach questions of jurisdiction and the law applicable to transnational disputes. The Australian approach is unusual, and not replicated, for example, in England, where private international law remains in most universities a subject studied only on masters level programs.

Australian Private International Law

When referring to 'The Future of Private International Law in Australia' (the title of this paper, and of the seminar), one cannot but notice the elephant in the room, that is the way in which the words 'in Australia' appear to be used in a geographical sense only, a tacit admission of a lack of uniformity in the treatment of the subject among the legal systems which make up the Commonwealth of Australia. (3) The same reticence can be seen in the titles of the two most recently published Australian textbooks, the eighth edition of Nygh's Conflict of Laws in Australia (co-authored by Dr Bell and justice Brereton, as well as Professor Martin Davies) (4) and Professor Mortensen's Private International Law in Australia, (5) co-authored by Professor Mary Keyes and Professor Richard Garnett. (6)

This begs the question whether there is a sufficiently coherent body of law to earn the title 'Australian private international law' (that is, the law 'of' rather than 'in' Australia) and, if so, the further questions as to how that body of law developed and the ways in which it may develop in the future.

Looking to the past, two principal obstacles to the emergence of a unified 'Australian private international law' are evident. First, the historical and constitutional ties which linked Australia to the United Kingdom and, in particular, to the English common law. Second, the demands of a federal structure and the need for Australian courts to determine disputes connected to two or more Australian states or territories much more frequently than those involving a foreign country. These two circumstances, pulling private international law in different directions, were noted by Professor Nygh in the preface to the first edition of his work Conflict of Laws in Australia ('Nygh') in 1968. (7) In light of the continuing influence of English case law, and the prevalent need to find solutions to intrastate conflicts issues, Professor Nygh acknowledged that it was, as yet, 'incorrect to speak of an Australian law of conflicts'. (8) He suggested that:

the main justification for a special Australian text on conflict of laws is that such a text will encourage Australian lawyers to try and find their own solutions to conflictual problems at a time when the traditional dependence on all things British is rapidly disappearing. It is not, it must be stressed, intended to strike a blow for Australian nationalism. Rather, it is intended to encourage a greater freedom in local experimentation in which solutions are adopted for their own intrinsic merit and...