Conflict of laws in international tort cases: The need for reform on both sides of the Tasman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of which law to apply to resolve a tort case comprising elements from more than one jurisdiction is not an easy one to decide. Many different approaches have been tried and discarded by the courts. Some approaches provide for a general rule but include a flexible exception. Others provide for a completely flexible test. This article traces the Australian courts' latest attempts to deal with the matter, and documents recent developments in England, Canada and New Zealand. Reference is made to the vast North American jurisprudence in this area, in particular interest analysis, to suggest the way forward for Australian and New Zealand courts in this area, with a view to maintaining some flexibility in approach, while applying the law of the place of the wrong as the primary test. The author commends the High Court of Australia's (belated) rejection of the double actionability test and suggests that New Zealand might also consider rejecting that approach. However, it is submitted the Australian High Court should adopt a flexible exception, as have the courts in other countries, including New Zealand and Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".