Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments : are the rules appropriate?

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is an aspect of private international law, and concerns situations where a successful party to litigation seeks to rely on a judgment obtained in one court, in a court in another jurisdiction. The most common example where the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments may arise is where a party who has obtained a favourable judgment in one state or country may seek to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country. This occurs because there is no sufficient asset in the state or country where the judgment was rendered to satisfy that judgment. As technological advancements in communications over vast geographical distances have improved exponentially in recent years, there has been an increase in cross-border transactions, as well as litigation arising from these transactions. As a result, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is of increasing importance, since a party who has obtained a judgment in cross-border litigation may wish to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country, where the defendant’s assets may be located without having to re-litigate substantive issues that have already been resolved in another court. The purpose of the study is to examine whether the current state of laws for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia, the United States and the European Community are in line with modern-commercial needs. The study is conducted by weighing two competing objectives between the notion of finality of litigation, which encourages courts to recognise and enforce judgments foreign to them, on the one hand, and the adequacy of protection to safeguard the recognition and enforcement proceedings, so that there would be no injustice or unfairness if a foreign judgment is recognised and enforced, on the other. The findings of the study are as follows. In both Australia and the United States, there is a different approach concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by courts interstate or in a foreign country. In order to maintain a single and integrated nation, there are constitutional and legislative requirements authorising courts to give conclusive effects to interstate judgments. In contrast, if the recognition and enforcement actions involve judgments rendered by a foreign country’s court, an Australian or a United States court will not recognise and enforce the foreign judgment unless the judgment has satisfied a number of requirements and does not fall under any of the exceptions to justify its non-recognition and non-enforcement. In the European Community, the Brussels I Regulation which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments among European Union Member States has created a scheme, whereby there is only a minimal requirement that needs to be satisfied for the purposes of recognition and enforcement. Moreover, a judgment that is rendered by a Member State and based on any of the jurisdictional bases set forth in the Brussels I Regulation is entitled to be recognised and enforced in another Member State without further review of its underlying jurisdictional basis. However, there are concerns as to the adequacy of protection available under the Brussels I Regulation to safeguard the judgment-enforcing Member States, as well as those against whom recognition or enforcement is sought. This dissertation concludes by making two recommendations aimed at improving the means by which foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in the selected jurisdictions. The first is for the law in both Australia and the United States to undergo reform, including: adopting the real and substantial connection test as the new jurisdictional basis for the purposes of recognition and enforcement; liberalising the existing defences to safeguard the application of the real and substantial connection test; extending the application of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) in Australia to include at least its important trading partners; and implementing a federal statutory scheme in the United States to govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The second recommendation is to introduce a convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The convention will be a convention double, which provides uniform standards for the rules of jurisdiction a court in a contracting state must exercise when rendering a judgment and a set of provisions for the recognition and enforcement of resulting judgments.

Pragmatism and precision : psychology in the service of civil litigation

While forensic psychology is commonly associated with the criminal and family law domains, its ambit to offer skills and knowledge at the legal interface also makes it particularly suited to the civil law domain. At this time, civil law is arguably the least represented legislative area in terms of psychological research and professional commentary. However, it is also a broad area, with its very breadth providing scope for research consideration, as urged by Greene. The purposes of this article are (1) to review the broad role of the psychologist in the conduct of civil litigation matters in Australia, (2) to assist the novice to the area by indicating a non-exhaustive list of potentially ambiguous terms and concepts common to the conduct of professional practice, and; (3) to highlight, as an example, one area of practice not only where legal direction demands professional pragmatism but also where opportunity arises for psychological research to vitally address a major social issue.

Surrogacy : competing interests or a tangled web?

Overseas commercial surrogacy is a legally challenging but commonly utilised form of assisted reproductive technology. Not only does it raise complex and competing policy issues, but it tests the relevant Family Law legislation which underpins parenting orders. Decisions handed down by the judiciary are inconsistent. Legislation is inadequate. But still the surge in surrogacy continues as surrogacy destinations such as India and Thailand continue to increase in popularity. Part one of this article addresses the competing interests of the illegality of overseas commercial surrogacy arrangements with the welfare of the child born as a result of such arrangements, and the inconsistent approaches taken by the judiciary. Part two concerns the interpretation of Family Law legislation by the courts in an attempt to provide intended couples and their children with certainty and finality, again resulting in inconsistent judicial decisions. Overseas commercial surrogacy is legally problematic, and intended parents need to be aware of its limitations.

What further benefit, if any, might Australia get from the ALI-III Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases?

In 2006, the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) established a Transnational Insolvency Project and appointed Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (Netherlands) as Joint Reporters. The objective was to investigate whether the essential provisions of the ALI Principles of Cooperation among the NAFTA Countries (ALI-NAFTA Principles) and the annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases (ALI-NAFTA Guidelines) may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. In 2012, Professor Fletcher and Professor Wessels presented the report Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“ALI-III Report”) to the Annual Meetings of the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute. In 2013, the Australian Academy of Law (AAL) provided support to the authors to undertake research on the possible benefits for Australia of courts and insolvency administrators of referring to the ALI-III Report when addressing international insolvency cases. This AAL project was at the request of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. This research Report compares the Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases with the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 and the UNCITRAL Model Law as it has been adopted and has force of law in Australia. Further, it examines the Global Guidelines for Court-to-Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases in light of Australian cross-border insolvency and procedural law. Finally, it makes brief reference to and commentary on the Global Rules on Conflict–of-Laws Matters in International Insolvency Cases annexed to the ALI-III Report from the perspective of Australian choice of law rules.

An Australian perspective on the ALI-III global principles for cooperation in International insolvency cases

In 2012, Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (The Netherlands) presented a Report to the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute entitled Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“Global Principles”). This followed their appointment as Joint Reporters to investigate whether the essential provisions of the American Law Institute Principles of Cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement Countries with their annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. This article comments on the Global Principles from the perspective of a jurisdiction which has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency (“Model Law”). In 2008, Australia enacted a standalone statute, the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) to which is annexed the Model Law. In that process, it made minimal changes to the Model Law text. Against the background of the 2008 Act, related procedural laws as well as Australia’s general insolvency statutes and recent cross-border insolvency jurisprudence, this article comments on the potential relevance of the Transnational Insolvency Report as a point of reference for Australian courts and insolvency administrators when addressing international insolvency cases. By comparing the Global Principles with the Model Law as closely adopted in Australia, this analysis is a resource for other Model Law jurisdictions when considering the potential relevance of the Global Principles for their own international insolvency practice.

How do Australian print media representations of child abuse and neglect inform the public and system reform?

The print media play a vital role in informing the public about child abuse and neglect. This information helps build broad support for laws and system developments that enable the state to intervene into private family lives and ensure that children are protected from maltreatment. Print media coverage usually sets the daily media agenda. It therefore influences public understandings of child abuse and neglect and what people believe should be done about it. Media impact on policy agendas should not be underestimated. This article outlines the results of a study of all major Australian newspaper stories covering abuse and neglect matters during an 18-month period in 2008–2009. A range of issues are identified concerning how well these stories inform the public about the nature of the problem and the current national reform agenda for protective systems that promotes early intervention and prevention...

Equal shared parental responsibility and shared care post-return to Australia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention

This article explores the outcomes experienced by abducting primary carer mothers and their children post-return to Australia under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.1 The circumstances faced by families that experience international parental child abduction are examined by considering how part VII of the Australian Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is applied to resolve parenting disputes post-return. At present, the statutory criteria found in part VII encourage an equal shared parental responsibility and shared care parenting approach.2 This emphasis aligns children’s best interests with collaborative parenting3 and their parents living within close geographical proximity of each other to facilitate the practicalities of the approach.4 Arguably, these statutory criteria guide the exercise of judicial discretion to determine a child’s best interests towards a parenting arrangement that is incompatible with the lifestyle and functional characteristics of these families.

Re-examining habitual residence as the sole connecting factor in Hague Convention child abduction cases

This article critiques the usefulness of habitual residence as the sole connecting factor in Hague Convention child abduction cases. This is achieved by examining the quality of this jurisdiction in light of changes in the gender dynamics underpinning international parental child abduction and the transnational family phenomenon. Arguably, the child’s habitual residence as a home environment of the nature anticipated by the Convention’s drafters is an increasingly outdated construct. This is due to an increase in both the number of abducting primary-carer mothers, and their families’ growing mobility. Judicial determinations of habitual residence made during Conven- tion return proceedings are entrenched in the state-centric paradigm. This paradigm is becoming increasingly incompatible with the lives of families which experience international parental child abduction.

A study of outcomes post-return to Australia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention for abducting primary-carer mothers and their children

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of outcomes experienced by abducting primary-carer mothers and their children post-return to Australia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. The study specifically focused on legal and factual outcomes post-return to Australia as the child's habitual residence. The study contributes an original critique of the Convention's operation by examining the collective operation of Convention return proceedings and Pt VII proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) post-return. Convention return proceedings, and the resolution of the substantive parenting dispute post-return to Australia, are not distinct stages operating in isolation. Viewing them as such is a purely theoretical exercise divorced from the reality of the lives of transnational families. Arguably, a better measure of the Convention's success is the outcomes it produces as part of the entire system designed to address the contemporary problem of international parental child abduction. When a child is returned to Australia this system includes the operation of Australian family law.

Issues to consider when developing mandatory reporting legislation and policy to improve discovery of child abuse

In the United Kingdom, recent investigations into child sexual abuse occurring within schools, the Catholic Church and the British Broadcasting Corporation, have intensified debate on ways to improve the discovery of child sexual abuse, and child maltreatment generally. One approach adopted in other jurisdictions to better identify cases of severe child maltreatment is the introduction of some form of legislative mandatory reporting to require designated persons to report known and suspected cases. The debate in England has raised the prospect of whether adopting a strategy of some kind of mandatory reporting law is advisable. The purpose of this article is to add to this debate by identifying fundamental principles, issues and complexities underpinning policy and even legislative developments in the interests of children and society. The article will first highlight the data on the hidden nature of child maltreatment and the background to the debate. Secondly, it will identify some significant gaps in knowledge that need to be filled. Thirdly, the article will summarise the barriers to reporting abuse and neglect. Fourthly, we will identify a range of options for, and clarify the dilemmas in developing, legislative mandatory reporting, addressing two key issues: who should be mandated to report, and what types of child maltreatment should they be required to report? Finally, we draw attention to some inherently different goals and competing interests, both between and within the various institutions involved in the safeguarding of children and the criminal prosecution of some offenders. Based on this analysis we offer some concluding observations that we hope contribute to informed and careful debate about mandatory reporting.

Mandatory Reporting Laws for Child Sexual Abuse in Australia : A Legislative History

This work conducts a comprehensive historical review and analysis of the legislative principles for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in each State and Territory of Australia. The research traces and explains all the significant changes in the development of the laws in each jurisdiction since their inception in 1969 to the year 2013. The research also identifies why the legislation changed in each jurisdiction, covering research into publicly available records, focusing on significant government inquiries and law reform reports, and parliamentary debates. The research is situated within a treatment of the modern discovery of child sexual abuse as a widespread phenomenon of significant public health concern.

U v U [2002] HCA 36: Commentary

This commentary offers a feminist analysis of relocation cases through the lens of U v U [2002] HCA 36, and with reference to the re-written judgment for the Australian Feminist Judgments project. First, the commentary considers the gendered nature of relocation cases, and analyses aspects of the reasoning and outcome of U v U that are of concern from a feminist perspective. Second, the commentary discusses how the re-written judgment addresses these concerns, thereby offering a feminist judgment on the issue of relocation in family law.

An analytical study revisiting debate on interpretation of Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice

Article 38(1) of the Statute of International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ) is today generally seen as a direction to the significant sources of international law, which the world court must consider in resolving disputes; however, the list is not exhaustive nor encompasses all the formal and material sources of the international legal system. Article 38 of the Statute of ICJ was written ninety years ago in a different world, a question is under debate in many states, whether or not sources mentioned in Article 38 of the statute are compatible with needs of 21st century ? In recent decade, many new actors come on the stage which have transformed international law and now it is not only governs relations among states but also covers many International Organizations. Article 38(2) does refer to the other possible sources but does not define them. Moreover, law is a set of rules that citizens must follow to regulate peace and order in society. These laws are binding on both the individual and the state on a domestic and international level. Do states regard this particular rule as a rule of international law? The modern legal system of states is in the form of a specified and well organized set of rules, regulating affairs of different organs of a state. States also need a body of rules for their intercourse with each other. These sets of rules among states are called “International Law.” This article examines international law, its foundation and sources. It considers whether international conventions and treaties can be the only way states can considerably create international law, or there is a need for clarity about the sources of international law. Article is divided into two parts, the first one deals with sources of international law discussed in Article 38 of the statute of International Court of Justice whereas the second one discusses the material and formal sources of law, which still need reorganization as sources of law.