Restricted Item. Print thesis available in the University of Auckland Library or may be available through Inter-Library Loan.

This study examines jurisdiction in the conflict of laws of England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand with particular regard to the judicial discretion. Jurisdiction may be categorised under three headings-contractual forum, lis alibi pendens and service outside the jurisdiction (order XI). The historical origin of the contractual forum and its relation to public policy are reviewed. Public policy may still be of relevance to the contractual forum today. The difference between the exclusive and nonexclusive choice of forum is apparently only one of degree. More weight is given to an exclusive clause. A first attempt to formulate principles for the exercise of the discretion in this category is to be found in The Fehmarn [1958] 1 W.L.R. 159. The decision indicates that the strict and unvarying enforcement of the contract evident in cases before 1922 is no longer to be relied upon. The case is also notable for Lord Dennings view that a dispute should be settled by the tribunals of the country with which the case is most closely connected, the proper court theory. Subsequently a detailed list of discretionary principles has been laid down by Brandon J. in The Eleftheria [1970] P. 94 at 99-100. Although these rules have gained a wide measure of acceptance, analysis suggest that some are contrary to binding authority. The second category is lis alibi pendens. For this purpose lis is defined flexibly. Tables have been prepared detailing the practice of the courts in granting and refusing the stay or injunction, and demonstrating the different nature of the remedies. Transient jurisdiction is a fundamental principle of Commonwealth law despite its lack of a firm basis in precedent. No clear principles for the exercise of the discretion can be defined. New doctrines such as forum-shopping attempt to remedy the effects of the rules of jurisdiction without altering their basic deficiencies. The recent decision of the House of Lords in The Atlantic Star [1973] 2 All E.R. 175 represents a considerable change in practice. It will now be much easier to obtain a stay. The third category is service outside the jurisdiction. Two sub-rules of Order XI are discussed in detail, namely the tort committed within the jurisdiction and proper or necessary parties abroad joined to a suit against a local defendant. Recent developments in cases on the place of tort suggest a search for the most appropriate court and the degree of connection between the cause of action and the country concerned. Mechanical tests utilised in the past may no longer be applied. The necessary or proper party provision is open to abuse, particularly where the local defendant is a man of straw. For ex parte applications under Order XI the requirement of full and fair disclosure has only been relied upon as a reason for setting aside an order for service where no cause of action has been shown. This and other rules for the exercise of the discretion laid down by Farwell L.J. in The Hagen [1908] P. 189 at 201 are frequently quoted but are no longer generally observed. Modern trends no longer protect the foreign defendant. The illogical nature of the principles of discretionary jurisdiction may be corrected by a single statute incorporating a unified approach.