Trans-TasmanCourtProceedings
andRegulatoryEnforcement
AREPORTBYTHE
TRANS-TASMANWORKINGGROUP
December2006
ExecutiveSummary
TheTrans-TasmanWorkingGrouponCourtProceedingsandRegulatoryEnforcement(the WorkingGroup)wasestablishedin2003bythePrimeMinistersofAustraliaandNewZealand, theHonJohnHowardMPandtheRtHonHelenClarkMP.
TheWorkingGroup’sTermsofReferencerequiredittoexamine the effectiveness and appropriateness of current arrangements that relate to civil (including family) proceedings, civil penaltyproceedingsandcriminalproceedings(wherethoseproceedingsrelatetoregulatory matters). (ThefullTermsofReferenceareAttachmentA.)
InAugust2005,afterconsideringawiderangeofpolicyandproceduralissues,theWorking Groupreleasedapublicdiscussionpaperinvitingviewsonproblems,optionsandpreferred solutionsabouttheresolutionoftrans-Tasmandisputesandincreasedregulatorycooperation. Thediscussionpaperwascirculatedwidelyandmadeavailabletothepubliconthewebsitesof theAustralianGovernmentAttorney-General'sDepartmentandtheNewZealandMinistryof Justice.
Havingconsideredtheresponsesreceived,theWorkingGrouphasmadeaseriesof recommendationsastohowthelegalframeworkforresolvingcivildisputeswithatrans-Tasman elementmightbeimproved.Cheaper,moreefficientandlesscomplicateddisputeresolution mechanismswouldbeofsignificantbenefittoindividualsandbusinessinthetwocountries.
TheWorkingGroup’scentralrecommendationisthata‘trans-Tasmanregime’,modelledonthe ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct1992 (Cth),beintroducedasbetweenthetwocountries. Theproposedregimewouldallowinitiatingprocessincivilproceedingsissuedoutofacourtin AustraliaorNewZealandtobeservedintheothercountry,withthesameeffectasifservicehad occurredinthecountryofissue.Currently,arangeofjudgmentsofAustralianandNewZealand courtscanberegisteredandenforcedbyacourtintheothercountry.Weproposethattherange
ofenforceablejudgmentsbebroadened,andthatjudgmentsonlyberefusedenforcementifthey conflictwiththepublicpolicyoftheothercountry.
Theproposedtrans-Tasmanregimewouldbesupportedbywideruseofteleconferenceand videolinktechnologytoenableremoteappearancesintrans-Tasmanproceedings.TheWorking Grouprecommendsthat,forappearancesincivilproceedings,apartyintheothercountry(and theirlawyer)beallowedtoappearbytelephoneorvideolinkwiththeleaveofthecourtinmost cases,andasofrightinanapplicationforastayofproceedings,onthegroundsthatacourtin theothercountryismoreappropriatetodecidethedispute.
SomeoftheWorkingGroup’srecommendationswouldimproveregulatoryenforcement betweenAustraliaandNewZealand.Civilpecuniarypenaltiesfromonecountrywouldbe enforceableintheotherunlessspecificallyexcluded.Criminalfinesimposedforcertain regulatoryoffencesinonecountrywouldbeenforceableintheotherinthesamewayasacivil judgment debt.
These,andtheotherrecommendationsmadebytheWorkingGroup,arediscussedinmoredetail inthebodyofthisreport.
Shouldgovernmentsaccepttheserecommendations,theWorkingGroupenvisagesthatan appropriateagreementorarrangementbetweenthetwocountriescouldunderpinthemirror
legislation required ineachcountrytoimplement theproposed regime.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Service of process and recognition and enforcement of judgments
Aregime,modelledontheService and Execution of Process Act 1992(Cth), should be introducedbetweenAustraliaandNewZealandtoallow:
civilinitiatingprocessissuedoutofanyAustralianfederal,StateorTerritorycourttobe servedinNewZealand,and
civilinitiatingprocessissuedoutofanyNewZealandcourttobeservedinany
AustralianStateorTerritory.
Serviceshouldhavethesameeffectandgiverisetothesameproceedingsasifservicehad occurredinthejurisdictionofissue.
Theregimeshouldhavethefollowingfeatures:
theplaintiffwouldnothavetoestablishanyparticularconnectionbetweenthe proceedingsandtheforumtobeallowedtoservetheproceedingsintheothercountry
thedefendantcouldapplyforastayofproceedingsonthebasisthatacourtintheother countryisthemoreappropriatecourtfortheproceeding
ajudgmentfromonecountrycouldberegisteredintheother. Itwouldhavethesame forceandeffect,andcouldbeenforced,asajudgmentofthecourtwhereitisregistered
ajudgmentcouldonlybevaried,setasideorappealedinthecourtoforigin. Thecourtof registrationwouldbeabletostayenforcementtoallowthistohappen
ajudgmentdebtorwouldbenotifiedifajudgmentwasregisteredintheothercountry ajudgmentcouldonlyberefusedenforcementintheothercountryonpublicpolicy
grounds. Othergrounds,suchasbreachofnaturaljustice,wouldhavetoberaisedwith
the original court
thedefendant’saddressforservicecouldbeinAustraliaorNewZealand
judgmentscouldberegisteredintheFederalCourtofAustralia,theFamilyCourtof Australia,anyAustralianSupremeCourt,ortheNewZealandHighCourt,orinanyother courtineithercountrythatcouldhavegrantedtherelief,and
thecommonlawrulethatanAustralianorNewZealandcourtwillnotdirectlyor indirectlyenforceaforeignpubliclawshouldnotapplytotheenforcementofjudgments underthisscheme.
The scheme should not apply to existing statutory co-operation arrangements or matters covered by existing or proposed multi-lateral arrangements, such as dissolution of marriage or enforcing maintenanceandchildsupportobligations. Actionsinremshouldalsonotbecovered.
Recommendation 2: Final non-money judgments
TherangeoffinaljudgmentsthatcanberecognisedandenforcedbetweenAustraliaandNew Zealandshouldbebroadenedtoincludethoserequiringapersontodo,ornotdo,something(eg injunctionsandordersforspecificperformance).
Thefollowingjudgmentsshouldnotbeincluded:
ordersaboutprobate,lettersofadministrationortheadministrationofanestate ordersabouttheguardianshipormanagementofpropertyofsomeonewhois incapableofmanagingtheirpersonalaffairsorproperty
orders about the care, control or welfare of a child, and
ordersthat,ifnotcompliedwith,mayleadtoconvictionforanoffenceintheplace wheretheorderwasmade.
Thereshouldbepowertoexcludespecificregimesandparticulartypesofnon-moneyjudgments fromenforcementunderthisscheme.
Recommendation 3: Interim relief in support of foreign proceedings
AppropriateAustralianandNewZealandcourtsshouldbegivenstatutoryauthoritytogrant interimreliefinsupportofproceedingsintheothercountry’scourts.
Therangeofeligibleinterimordersshouldnotbelimited,socouldincludeMarevainjunctions,
AntonPillerordersandsuppressionordersatthediscretionofthecourt.
Recommendation 4: Enforcing tribunal orders
Certainorders,orordersincertaintypesofproceedings,madebyspecifiedtribunals,shouldbe recognisedandenforcedbetweenAustraliaandNewZealandundertheregimeoutlinedin Recommendation1. Theparticulartribunals,proceedingsandorderstowhichtheregimewould applyshouldbeprescribedbysubordinatelegislationonacasebycasebasis.
Documentsincertaintypesofproceedingsbeforespecifiedtribunalsshouldalsobeabletobe servedintheothercountryundertheregime. Thesetribunalsandproceedingsshouldbe separatelyprescribedbysubordinatelegislation.
Recommendation 5: Declining jurisdiction
A common statutory test should be adopted between Australia and New Zealand to allow a person to seek a stay of proceedings in one country on the grounds that a court in the other countryisthemoreappropriateforumfortheproceeding.
Recommendation 6: Leave requirement for trans-Tasman service of subpoenas
TheleaverequirementforissuingsubpoenasundertheEvidence and Procedure (New Zealand) Act 1994(Cth)andtheEvidence Amendment Act 1994(NZ)(thetrans-Tasmanevidenceregime) shouldremaintoprotectagainstinappropriateuseoftheregime.
Ajudgeofalowercourtshouldbeabletograntleavetoissueatrans-Tasmansubpoenaincivil
proceedingsbeforethatcourtorbeforeaprescribedtribunal.(InAustralia,thispowershould alsobeextendedtomagistrates.)
Recommendation 7: Court appearance by video link or telephone
Anapplicantforastayofcivilproceedingsundertheproposedtrans-Tasmanregime,andtheir lawyer,shouldhavetherighttoappearremotely,withthecourtdecidingwhetherthisisdoneby telephoneorvideolink.
Forothercourtappearancesincivilproceedings,apartyresidingintheothercountryshouldbe allowedtoappearbytelephoneorvideolinkwithleaveofthecourt. Theirlawyerwouldalsobe abletoappearremotelywithleave. Lawyersshouldnotbeabletoappearremotelyunlesseither theyhavetherighttoappearbeforethatcourt(becausetheyareregisteredinthatplaceunderthe Trans-TasmanMutualRecognitionArrangementorotherwise),orthecourtallowsthemto appearwithoutlocalregistration.
Lawyerscouldseekleavetoappearwithoutlocalregistrationonlyiftheywereregisteredwhere theirclientresidedandtheywouldbeappearingremotelyfromthatplace.
Recommendation 8: Enforcing civil pecuniary penalty orders
Acivilpecuniarypenaltyordermadeinonecountryshouldbeenforceableintheotherasacivil judgmentundertheproposedtrans-Tasmanregime. Eithercountrycouldexcludeparticular pecuniarypenaltyregimesintheothercountryfromenforcement.
Recommendation 9: Enforcing fines for certain regulatory offences
Finesimposedinonecountryforcriminaloffencesundercertainregulatoryregimesshouldbe enforceableintheother,inthesamewayasciviljudgmentdebts. Onlyfinesforoffencesunder aregulatoryregimethataffectstheeffectiveness,integrityandefficiencyoftrans-Tasman marketsandinwhichbothcountrieshaveastrongmutualinterestshouldbeincluded.
Recommendation 10: Extending trans-Tasman subpoenas to criminal proceedings
SubpoenasincriminalproceedingsshouldbeabletobeservedacrosstheTasmanwiththeleave ofajudgeundertheEvidenceandProcedure(NewZealand)Act1994(Cth)andtheEvidence AmendmentAct1994(NZ)tofacilitatethetakingofevidence.(InAustralia,thispowershould alsobeextendedtomagistrates.)
Introduction
Thestrengthandsignificanceofthetrans-Tasmanrelationshipisclear. The1973TransTasman TravelArrangement,the1983AustraliaNewZealandCloserEconomicRelationsTrade Agreement(ANZCERTA)andnumerousinitiativesunderANZCERTAhaveincreased integrationandcooperationbetweenthetwocountriesandhavefacilitatedincreasedtrans- Tasmantradesinceitsinception.
Inevitably,insuchanenvironment,agreaternumberofdisputeswillarisewithacross-border elementinvolvingindividualsorbusinessesinthetwocountries.Closerintegrationofthe AustralianandNewZealandciviljusticesystemswouldmakeresolutionofthesedisputes simplerandmoreefficient,andtheremediesmoreeffective.Increasingtheclarityandcertainty availabletocrossborderlitigantswouldalsohelptosupportandincreasethesuccessofthetrade relationshipinthefuture.
WiththeexceptionofsomereformstotheAustralianandNewZealandciviljusticesystemsin theearly1990s,includingthedevelopmentofatrans-Tasmanevidenceregime,1the two countriesgenerallytreatcrossbordercivildisputesinvolvingtheotherinthesamewayasthey wouldtreatadisputeinvolvinganyotherforeigncountry. Thisdoesnotreflectthespecial relationshipbetweenAustraliaandNewZealand,whichshareacommonlawheritageandvery similarjusticesystems. Forthesereasons,andbecauseoftheconfidencethatbothcountries haveineachother'sjudicialandregulatoryinstitutions,manyofthesafeguardsrequiredfor interactionwithmoredistant,dissimilarcountriesareunnecessary.
Againstthisbackground,in2003thePrimeMinistersofbothcountries,the
HonJohnHoward MP and theRtHonHelenClarkMP,agreedtoestablishaWorkingGroupto undertakeareviewofexistingtrans-Tasmanco-operationincourtproceedingsandregulatory enforcement.
TheWorkingGroup’sTermsofReferencerequiredittoexamine the effectiveness and appropriateness of current arrangements that relate to civil (including family) proceedings, civil penaltyproceedingsandcriminalproceedings(wherethoseproceedingsrelatetoregulatory matters). (ThefullTermsofReferenceareAttachmentA.)
The Working Group, comprising senior officials from relevant government departments in both Australia and New Zealand, met on three occasions. TheparticipantsintheWorkingGroupare listed inAttachment B.
TheWorkingGroupreleasedapublicdiscussionpaperinAugust2005. Italsowrotetokey stakeholders,includingthecourts,theAustralianStatesandTerritories,thelegalprofession (throughrepresentativebodies)andrelevantCommonwealthandNewZealandgovernment departmentsandagencies,seekingviews. Inaddition,thediscussionpaperwasplacedonthe internetforinterestedpartiesandmembersofthepublictoaccess.
The discussion paper:
highlightedanumberofrecurringproblemsincivilcourtproceedingswitha trans-Tasmanelementandtheenforcementofregulatoryregimes
1Containedin theEvidenceandProcedure(NewZealand)Act 1994(Cth)andtheEvidenceAmendmentAct1994
(NZ)
discussedoptionstoaddresstheseproblemsandindicatedapreferredsolutiontoeach, and
soughtviewsontheproblems,optionsandpreferredsolutions.
TheissuesaddressedbytheWorkingGroupfallintothreecategories.Theseformthebasisfor the structure of this report:
IService and execution of civil process and judgments
IITrans-Tasman evidence regime and use of technology
IIICivil penalties, fines and subpoenas in criminal proceedings.
Thirty-twosubmissionswerereceivedinresponsetothediscussionpaper(fifteenfromAustralia andseventeenfromNewZealand). AlistofthosewhomadesubmissionsisinAttachmentC.
Overall,thesubmissionswereverysupportiveoftheWorkingGroup’sproposals,someeven suggestingthattheintegrationofthetwosystemscouldgofurther. Afteranalysingthe submissions,theWorkingGrouprevieweditspreferredsolutionsandfinalisedits recommendations.
TheWorkingGroupconsidersthatfurtherreformtocreateamorecoherentlegalframeworkfor resolvingcivildisputeswithatrans-Tasmanelement,undertherubricoftheANZCERTAand buildingontheinnovativereformsofthe1990s,wouldhavesignificantbenefits.Itwouldbuild onthesuccessofexistingmeasuresandsupportother,andfuture,integrationinitiatives.
Mostrecommendationssupportasingle,integratedregime,describedhereas'theproposed trans-Tasmanregime',modelledontheService and Execution of Process Act 1992(Cth).The ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct1992(Cth)wasdesignedtoremovemanysimilarproblems betweentheAustralianStatesandTerritories.
Ifbothgovernmentsagreetotherecommendationsinthispaper,theagreementcouldberecorded inatreatyorotherarrangementbetweenthetwocountries. Mirrorlegislationcouldthenbe developedforbothcountriestoimplementthescheme. Itwouldbeappropriatetoconsult stakeholders,includingtheAustralianStatesandTerritories,furtheronthedetailed implementationoftheproposals,shouldgovernmentsdecidetogoahead. TheWorkingGroup notesthatitwouldtakesometimetocompletethesesteps.Sincetheproposedregimewould
improvetheeffectivenessofcurrentandfuturetrans-Tasmaninitiatives,ifbothgovernmentswish
toproceed,itwouldbedesirabletobeginworkonimplementationwithoutdelay.
Adetaileddiscussionofeachrecommendation,includingabriefanalysisoftheexistingposition oneachissue,asummaryoftheviewsofsubmittersandthereasoningbehindthe recommendations,follows.
I:Serviceand executionofcivil processandjudgments
Recommendation 1: Service of process and recognition and enforcement of judgments
Aregime,modelledontheService and Execution of Process Act 1992(Cth), should be introducedbetweenAustraliaandNewZealandtoallow:
civilinitiatingprocessissuedoutofanyAustralianfederal,StateorTerritory courttobeservedinNewZealand,and
civilinitiatingprocessissuedoutofanyNewZealandcourttobeservedinany
AustralianStateorTerritory.
Serviceshouldhavethesameeffectandgiverisetothesameproceedingsasifservice hadoccurredinthejurisdictionofissue.
Theregimeshouldhavethefollowingfeatures:
the plaintiff would not have to establish any particular connection between the proceedings and the forum to be allowed to serve the proceedings in the other country
thedefendantcouldapplyforastayofproceedingsonthebasisthatacourtin theothercountryisthemoreappropriatecourtfortheproceeding
ajudgmentfromonecountrycouldberegisteredintheother.Itwouldhavethe sameforceandeffect,andcouldbeenforced,asajudgmentofthecourtwhereit isregistered
ajudgmentcouldonlybevaried,setasideorappealedinthecourtoforigin. Thecourtofregistrationwouldbeabletostayenforcementtoallowthisto happen
ajudgmentdebtorwouldbenotifiedifajudgmentwasregisteredintheother country
ajudgmentcouldonlyberefusedenforcementintheothercountryonpublic policygrounds. Othergrounds,suchasbreachofnaturaljustice,wouldhaveto beraisedwiththeoriginalcourt
thedefendant’saddressforservicecouldbeinAustraliaorNewZealand judgmentscouldberegisteredintheFederalCourtofAustralia,theFamily
CourtofAustralia,anyAustralianSupremeCourt,ortheNewZealandHigh
Court,orinanyothercourtineithercountrythatcouldhavegrantedtherelief, and
thecommonlawrulethatanAustralianorNewZealandcourtwillnotdirectly
orindirectlyenforceaforeignpubliclawshouldnotapplytotheenforcementof
judgmentsunderthisscheme.
Theschemeshouldnotapplytocertainexistingstatutoryco-operationarrangements ormatterscoveredbyexistingorproposedmulti-lateralarrangements,suchas dissolutionofmarriageorenforcingmaintenanceandchildsupportobligations. Actionsinremshouldalsonotbecovered.
Existingposition
Atpresent,AustraliaandNewZealandtreateachotherinthesamewayastheytreatother foreigncountrieswhenitcomestocross-borderserviceandtherecognitionandenforcementof judgments.2Thisisgenerallyundesirable,giventheincreasingmovementofpeople,assetsand servicesacrosstheTasman.
AustralianandNewZealandcourtshavebroadjurisdictiontoallowserviceofcivilproceedings ona defendant overseas. However,quitedifferentrulesapplywhenacourtisaskedtorecognise orenforceajudgmentofaforeigncourt. Thesejudgmentswillonlybeenforcediftheforeign courtisconsideredtohaveexercisedproperjurisdictionoverthedefendantaccordingtomuch narrowerprivateinternationallawrules. Wherethedefendantwasservedoutsidethecountryin whichtheforeigncourtislocated,properjurisdictionisestablishedbythedefendant’s submissiontothejurisdictionoftheforeigncourt.
Forexample,SmithsellshisAustralianbusinesstoJones,andthenmovestoNewZealandwith allhisassets. JonessubsequentlybringsproceedingsinAustraliaagainstSmithforbreachof contract. SmithisvalidlyservedwiththeoriginatingprocessinNewZealand. However,Smith doesnotappearintheproceedings,andJonesobtainsadefaultjudgmentagainsthim. Jonesthen seekstoenforcethejudgmentagainstSmithinNewZealand. Smithsuccessfullyopposes enforcement. HearguesthattheAustraliancourtwasnotvalidlyexercisingjurisdiction,because hewasnotpresentorresidentinAustraliaatthetimeofservice,anddidnotsubmitvoluntarily
totheAustraliancourt'sjurisdiction.Jones,inAustralia,hasajudgmentinhisfavourbutis unabletorecoverthedamagesawardedtohimbythecourt.
Submissions
Submissionswerelargelysupportiveofourproposedsolutionfortheproblemsidentifiedin relationtotheserviceofprocessandrecognitionandenforcementofjudgments. Submissions alsogenerallysupportedtheproposaltobasetheproposedtrans-TasmanregimeontheService and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth),whichworkswellasaproceduralmodelbetweenthe AustralianStatesandTerritories.
SomesubmissionsreflectedconcernthatpermittingserviceacrosstheTasmanwithoutleave wouldeffectivelyshifttheburdenofprovingtheappropriatenessofthechosencourtfromthe plaintifftothedefendant.However,inNewZealandandseveralAustralianjurisdictions, plaintiffsare,inmanycases,notcurrentlyrequiredtoobtainleavetoserveoverseas(although theymustthenobtainleavetoproceedifthedefendantfailstoappear).Whereleavetoserveis notrequired,thereisalreadyeffectivelya‘burden’onthedefendantregardingthe appropriatenessofthechosencourt.Thisperceivedshift,therefore,islimitedinpractice.
2Therearesomelimitedexceptionstothis,includingspecialarrangementsforenforcingeachother'staxjudgments andlowercourtjudgments:seeForeignJudgmentsAct1991(Cth)andReciprocalEnforcementof JudgmentsAct
1934(NZ).
Concerns were also raised that allowing proceedings to recover small debts to be commenced outside the defendant’s home jurisdiction might encourage large companies to centralise their debt recovery processes in one jurisdiction and permit them to engage in forum shopping. The result might be to dissuade debtors from participating in the proceedings (due to the costs and practicaldifficultiesassociatedwithremotelitigation).
One submitter suggested that these concerns could be reduced by ensuring that small debtors are provided with relevant information at the time of service, including information about seeking a stayofproceedingsandtheirabilitytoappearbyvideolinkortelephone.
CurrentlyatcommonlawandundertheForeign Judgments Act 1991(Cth)andtheReciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 (NZ),adefendantcanopposeenforcementofaforeign judgmentonseveralgrounds,includingthatenforcementwouldbecontrarytopublicpolicy.A fewsubmissionssuggestedthatitmaynotbenecessarytoretainapublicpolicydefencebetween AustraliaandNewZealand,duetosimilaritiesinpublicpolicyandinlegalprocedures.
However,theoverwhelmingmajorityofsubmissionsagreedthatitwasnecessarytoretainthe righttoopposeenforcementofajudgmentonthegroundsofpublicpolicy.
Reasonsforrecommendation
Theproposedtrans-TasmanregimeisbasedontheService and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)model,whichhasresolvedsomeofthepracticaldifficultieswithservingprocessand enforcingjudgmentsbetweentheStatesandTerritorieswithinAustralia.Itissimple,streamlined and cost-effective.
WerecommendallowinginitiatingprocessincivilproceedingsbeguninanyAustralianfederal, StateorTerritorycourt,oranyNewZealandcourttobeservedintheothercountrywithout leave. Servicewouldhavethesameeffectasifithadoccurredintheplacewherethe proceedingswerefiled. Thedefendantwouldbeabletochallengethejurisdictionofthecourtof issuebyapplyingforastayofproceedingsonthegroundsthatacourtintheothercountryisthe more appropriate court to decide the dispute.
Weacknowledgethepossibilitythataplaintiffmightdeliberatelycommenceproceedingsinan inappropriatecourt. Thiswouldvirtuallycompelthedefendanttoapplyforastayandarguethat anothercourtismoreappropriate(whichwouldlikelyentailextracost).However,theabilityof thecourttoawardcostsagainstaplaintiffwouldserveasadeterrentagainstthissortof inappropriate conduct.
In situations where the proceedings go ahead, the complexities and cost of litigation at a distance will be ameliorated with increased use of technology to facilitate remote appearances (see Part II below).
Considerationwasgiventoexcludingsmalldebtrecoverymatters,soastoensurethattheyare commencedinthedebtor'shomecountry.Thereisalreadythepotentialforlargerdebtcollection firmstoengagein‘forumshopping’tothedetrimentofsmalldebtorswithinAustraliaunderthe ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct1992(Cth). For example, at present, proceedings to
recoveradebtforanyamountmaybebroughtintheNorthernTerritorywhenthedefendant residesinTasmania.
ThereislittleconcreteevidencethatthishasbeenaproblemundertheService and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth).Thereisalsonoreasontothinkthatproblemswouldnecessarilybe moreacuteunderatrans-TasmanregimethanwithinAustralia.Should evidence ofa significant
problememergeinthefuture,parallelreformsdealingwiththeseissuescouldbeconsideredto boththetrans-TasmananddomesticAustralianregimes.
Weareinfavourofcertaininformationbeingprovidedtodebtorstoassistthemtoparticipatein proceedingswheretheymightotherwisebeinclinednottodoso.
Atpresent,underthecommonlaw,anAustralianorNewZealandcourtwillnot(directlyor indirectly)enforceaforeignpubliclaw. Theprecisescopeofthisruleremainssomewhat unclear.However,theWorkingGroupconsidersthatthisruleshouldnotpreventthe enforcementofjudgmentsacrosstheTasman. Wethereforerecommendoverridingthisgeneral ruleundertheproposedtrans-Tasmanregime.
Weidentifiedcertainmattersinthediscussionpaperthatshouldnotbecoveredbytheproposed trans-Tasman regime.
Actionsinrem
Weareoftheviewthatactionsinremshouldbeexcludedfromtheproposedtrans-Tasman regime.Actionsinremfocusonthepropertyindisputeandbindthirdpartiesaswell. The regimewillonlyapplytoactionsinpersonam whichonlybindthepartiestotheproceeding.
Moçambiquerule
Wedonotproposeanyactiontoaddresstherulethatacourtgenerallyhasnopowerto determinemattersoftitleto,orpossessionof,immovableproperty(primarilyland)located outsideitsjurisdiction(theMoçambiquerule).3
TheMoçambiquerulehasbeenabolishedbystatuteinNewSouthWales,andpartiallyabolished intheAustralianCapitalTerritory. However,itisappliedintheotherAustralianStatesand Territories,andinNewZealand. Weconsiderthatitisprematuretorecommenditsoutright abolitionbetweenAustraliaandNewZealand. However,thereisreasontobelievethat independentdomesticreformswillprogressivelyabolishthisrule. Submissionsoverwhelmingly agreedwiththisapproach.
Statutoryco-operationandmulti-lateralarrangements
Werecommendthatcertainexistingstatutoryco-operationarrangementsandmatterscoveredby existingorproposedmulti-lateralarrangementsshouldbeexcludedfromtheproposed
trans-Tasmanregimetoavoidunnecessaryoverlapandconfusion. Theexcludedarrangements
shouldincludethoseregardingthedissolutionofmarriage,andenforcingmaintenanceandchild supportobligations(whicharecoveredbylegislationalreadyoperatingeffectivelyinboth countries).
Submissionsgenerallyagreedonthisapproach,althoughsomesuggestedadditionalexclusions tothoseexpresslymentionedinthediscussionpaper.Thelistofexclusionscouldbesetoutin legislationinbothcountries.
Recommendation 2: Final non-money judgments
3SocalledbecausetheleadingauthorityonthepointisBritishSouthAfricaCompanyv CompanhiadeMoçambique
[1893]AC602
TherangeoffinaljudgmentsthatcanberecognisedandenforcedbetweenAustraliaand NewZealandshouldbebroadenedtoincludethoserequiringapersontodo,ornotdo, something(eginjunctionsandordersforspecificperformance).
Thefollowingjudgmentsshouldnotbeincluded:
ordersaboutprobate,lettersofadministrationortheadministrationofan estate
ordersabouttheguardianshipormanagementofpropertyofsomeonewhois incapableofmanagingtheirpersonalaffairsorproperty
ordersaboutthecare,controlorwelfareofachild,and
ordersthat,ifnotcompliedwith,mayleadtoconvictionforanoffencein theplacewheretheorderwasmade.
Thereshouldbepowertoexcludespecificregimesandparticulartypesofnon-money judgmentsfromenforcementunderthisscheme.
Existingposition
CurrentlyonlyfinalmoneyjudgmentscanberegisteredandenforcedbetweenAustraliaand
New Zealand. ThisisdoneinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheForeign Judgments Act
1991 (Cth) and theReciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934(NZ).
TheseActsarecapableofbeingextendedtonon-moneyjudgments,butthishasneverhappened. OrdersforspecificperformanceorfinalinjunctionsmadeinAustraliaorNewZealandarenot enforceableintheothercountry. Thismakestheeffectiveandjustresolutionofdisputesmore difficult,slowerandmoreexpensive.
ThiscanbeillustratedbytheexampleofamarriedcoupleresidentinNewZealandwhodecide toseparate.Bothpartiesappearincourtproceedingstodeterminethedivisionofproperty.The NewZealandFamilyCourtordersonepartytoreturnjewellerytotheother. However,theparty orderedtoreturnthejewellerymovestoAustralia,takingitwiththem.ThejudgmentoftheNew ZealandCourtcurrentlycannotberegisteredinAustraliaundertheForeignJudgmentsAct1991 (Cth)becauseitisnota‘moneyjudgment’.Thepersonentitledtothejewelleryisunableto enforcethejudgmentinAustralia,andmustcommencenewproceedingsthere.
Submissions
Submissionswereverysupportiveofthisproposal. Somesuggestedthefullrangeofnon-money judgmentsshouldbespecificallyidentified.
Reasonsforrecommendation
Werecommendthat,undertheproposedtrans-Tasmanregime,judgmentsthatrequiresomeone todo,ornotdo,something(suchasinjunctionsandordersforspecificperformance)shouldalso beenforceablebetweenAustraliaandNewZealand. However,somejudgmentsshouldnotbe included,suchasordersabouttheadministrationofestatesandthecareorwelfareofchildren. Therecommendedexclusionsarethosekindsofordersrequiringahighlevelofsupervision. TheyarecurrentlyexcludedfromtheService and Execution of Process Act 1992(Cth) regime. Wenotethathavingalistofexclusionsworkswellinthecontextofthatstatute.
Wehaverecommendedoverridingthecommonlawrulepreventingtheenforcementofaforeign publiclaw(seeRecommendation1). Thiswouldensurethataninjunctionobtainedbya governmentregulatorunderaregulatoryregimeisabletobeenforcedundertheproposedtrans- Tasmanregime.ThepublicpolicyexceptionoutlinedinRecommendation1wouldprovidean adequate safeguard.
Weconsideredtheoptionofusingthenon-moneyjudgmentsprovisionsoftheReciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 (NZ)andtheForeign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth). This wouldundoubtedlybethesimplestoption,asthestatutoryframeworkisalreadyinplace. However,werejectedthisasalongtermsolutionfortheprincipalreasonthatthebasicstructure oftheseActsisnotappropriateforatrans-Tasmanscheme.
Recommendation 3: Interim relief in support of foreign proceedings
AppropriateAustralianandNewZealandcourtsshouldbegivenstatutoryauthorityto grantinterimreliefinsupportofproceedingsintheothercountry’scourts.
Therangeofeligibleinterimordersshouldnotbelimited,socouldincludeMareva
injunctions,AntonPillerordersandsuppressionordersatthediscretionofthecourt.
Existingposition
CurrentlyanAustralianorNewZealandcourtwillonlygrantinterimrelief,suchasaMareva injunctionpreventingapartyremovingassetsfromthejurisdictionordisposingofthem,pending finaljudgmentinproceedingsbeforethatcourt. Interimreliefcannotbeobtainedinonecountry insupportofproceedingsintheother.Instead proceedings seeking resolution of themain
disputeneedtobecommencedinthecourtwhereinterimreliefissought,evenifitisnotthe
appropriatecourttodecidethematter.Suchduplicateproceedingsinvolveunnecessarycost, delayandinconvenience.
Thiscanbeillustratedbyanexampleinvolvingmatrimonialpropertyproceedingscommencedin
Australia.Beforethecommencementofthehearingthepartyseekingtohaveproperty
transferredtothemdiscoversthattheotherpartyhastransferredalargesumofmoneytoaclose friendinNewZealand.Thereisconcernthatthefriendwilldisposeofthemoneybeforeafinal judgmentisgiven.TheAustraliancourtdoesnotautomaticallyhavejurisdictionoverthefriend inNewZealand.Likewise,NewZealandcourts(whichwouldhavejurisdiction)areunableto issueaMarevainjunctionasnosubstantiveproceedingshavebeencommencedthere.
Submissions
Submissionswereverysupportiveofthisproposal. Thediscussionpapersoughtviewson whethertheauthoritytograntinterimreliefshouldalsobeextendedtoproceedingsinother countries. Theresponsetothiswasmoremixed,withmanysuggestingthatthetrans-Tasman
proposalbeimplementedandassessedfirst,beforeconsiderationisgiventoextendingthe scheme to other countries. Wemakenorecommendationonthisissue. Itwouldbeopenfor eithercountrytoextendthisfacilitytoothercountries,shouldtheywishtodoso.
Reasonsforrecommendation
WerecommendthatappropriateAustralianandNewZealandcourts(iethoseinthecountry wheretheorderwillhaveeffectandwhicharecompetenttograntthereliefsought)begiven statutoryauthoritytograntinterimreliefinsupportofproceedingsintheothercountry. The rangeofeligibleinterimorderswouldnotbelimited,socouldincludeMarevainjunctions, AntonPillerordersandsuppressionorders,wherethecourtconsiderssuchrelieftobe appropriate.
Thisoptionappearsbothpracticalandeffective.Itwouldmeanthatthecourtinthecountry wheretheinterimreliefissoughtwouldretaincontroloverthatinterimrelief.Thatcourtcan protectlocalthirdpartiesandanyotherrelevantlocalinterestswhendecidingontheappropriate relief,ifany,togrant.
Recommendation 4: Enforcing tribunal orders
Certainorders,orordersincertaintypesofproceedings,madebyspecifiedtribunals, shouldberecognisedandenforcedbetweenAustraliaandNewZealandunderthe
regimeoutlinedinRecommendation1. Theparticulartribunals,proceedingsandorders
towhichtheregimewouldapplyshouldbeprescribedinsubordinatelegislationona case by case basis.
Documentsincertaintypesofproceedingsbeforespecifiedtribunalsshouldalsobeable tobeservedintheothercountryundertheregime.These tribunals and proceedings shouldbeseparatelyprescribedbysubordinatelegislation.
Existingposition
Decisionsoftribunalsinonecountrycannotcurrentlybeenforcedintheother. TheReciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 (NZ)andtheForeign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) only apply tocertain‘courts’oftheothercountry. However,manytribunalsinthetwocountriesadjudicate disputesinessentiallythesamewayasacourtandarewidelyused. Thecurrentsituation thereforelimitsefficientandcost-effectivedisputeresolution. Asordersofatribunalinone countrycannotbeenforcedintheother,aplaintiffhastobringcourtproceedingsinstead,or commencefreshtribunalproceedingsintheotherforumtoachieveanenforceableresult.This mayresultinunnecessarycost,delayandinconvenience.
Submissions
Thiswastheissueonwhichsubmissionsexpressedthebroadestrangeofviews. Therewas, however,generalsupportforincreasingtheenforceabilityoftribunalorders.Concerns were expressedabouttheexclusionorinclusionofparticulartribunals. Thoseconcernswouldneedto be addressed on a case-by-case basis as proposals to add particular tribunals are considered.
Recommendedsolution
We recommend that certain decisions or decisions in certain types of proceedings of specified tribunals should be enforceable in the other country. Theinitiatingprocessincertaintypesof proceedingsbeforespecifiedtribunalscouldalsobeservedintheothercountryunderthe
proposed trans-Tasman regime. Toensurethe appropriateness of particular arrangements, we recommendthattribunalsbeaddedtotheregimeonacasebycasebasis,bysubordinate legislation.
Fordecisionstobeeligibletobeprescribedforenforcementpurposes,atribunalshouldbe exercisinganadjudicativefunctionanditsordersshouldbeenforceablewithoutanorderofa court. Weconsiderthat,tobeprescribedforservicepurposesunderthetrans-Tasmanregime, serviceoftheinitiatingprocessofthattribunaloverseasshouldalreadybepossibleunder existinglaw.
Adetailedassessmentofthewayatribunalworks,itsrulesofprocedureandprocessesandthe natureoftheordersitmakeswillberequiredwhenthattribunalisconsideredforinclusionunder the scheme.Consultation withinterestedpartiesonspecificissuesrelevanttotheinclusionofa particulartribunalintheregimewouldalsobeimportant.
UndertheAustralianConstitution,federaltribunalscannotbevestedwithjudicialpower— federaltribunalsexerciseadministrativeauthorityonly. Duetotheseparationofexecutiveand judicialpoweratthefederallevelintheAustralianConstitution,Australianfederal-leveltribunal decisionswouldnotbecoveredbythisrecommendation.
Recommendation 5: Declining jurisdiction
AcommonstatutorytestshouldbeadoptedbetweenAustraliaandNewZealandto allowapersontoseekastayofproceedingsinonecountryonthegroundsthatacourt intheothercountryisthemoreappropriateforumfortheproceeding.
Existingposition
AustraliaandNewZealandapplypotentiallyinconsistentforum non conveniens, or ‘give way’ rules,todeterminewhetheranothercourtshoulddecideadispute. TheAustralianrulesrequirea courttodeclinejurisdictiononlywhereitisclearlyinappropriateforittodeterminethedispute. TheNewZealandrulesrequireacourttodeclinejurisdictionwhereanothercourtismore appropriate. Thesedifferencescanleadtoinconvenience,expenseanduncertainty.
Forexample,in1993matrimonialpropertyproceedingswereunderwayatthesametimeinboth AustraliaandNewZealand.4Neithercourtstayedtheproceedingsbeforeit.Fortunately,the partiessettledtheirdisputesothata‘racetojudgment’didnotoccur.Otherwise,thepartywho firstobtainedjudgmentwouldhavethepracticaladvantageofbeingabletoenforcethat
judgmentintheothercountry.
Submissions
Submissionsexpressedstrongsupportforthisproposal.
Onesubmissionsuggestedthat,evenwithaconsistentforum non conveniensrule,courtsineach countrymightapplythesametest,butcometodifferentconclusions.Thesubmissionproposed insteadthatthefirstcourtinwhichanactionwascommencedshouldhavejurisdiction.
However,weconsiderthatthelikelihoodoftwocourtsinthedifferentjurisdictionscomingto opposingconclusionsthroughapplicationofthesametestissufficientlyunlikelyastonot requirealegislativesolution.
4In theMarriageof Gilmore(1993)100FLR311and GilmorevGilmore[1993]NZFLR561
Recommendedsolution
Werecommendthatacommonstatutorytestbeadoptedbybothcountriessothatproceedingsin onecountrycouldbestayedifacourtintheothercountryisthemoreappropriateforumto decidethedispute.Courtswoulddecidethisissuetakingintoaccountalistoffactorssuchas wherethepartiesandwitnesseslive,andwhichjurisdiction’slawistobeapplied.
Anotherofthefactorstobetakenintoaccountshouldbewhetherthereisagreementbetweenthe partiesaboutthecourtorplacewhereproceedingsshouldbeheard. Wherethatagreementis exclusive(i.eonlythechosencourt,andnoother,hasjurisdictiontodecidethedispute)acourt wouldberequiredtodeclinejurisdictioninfavourofthechosencourt.Therewould be an exceptionwheretheagreementisnullandvoid,orinoperative(asdeterminedbythelawofthe jurisdictionofthechosencourt)orincapableofbeingperformed. Thisapproachisconsistent withthe2005HagueConventiononChoiceofCourtAgreements,a consideration that will be importantifeitherAustraliaorNewZealandultimatelydecidetobecomeaPartytothis Convention.
Wealsorecommendthatanti-suitinjunctionsshouldnotbegranted,asbetweenAustraliaand NewZealand,onthegroundsthatthecourtoftheothercountryisnottheappropriateforum. Thiswillpreventsuchinjunctionsbeingusedtocircumventtheproposedtrans-Tasmanregime, includingtheprovisionsonstayingproceedingsonthegroundsthatanothercourtisthemore appropriateforum.
II:Trans-Tasmanevidenceregimeanduseoftechnology
Recommendation 6: Leave requirement for trans-Tasman service of subpoena
TheleaverequirementforissuingsubpoenasundertheEvidence and Procedure (New Zealand) Act 1994 (Cth)andtheEvidence Amendment Act 1994(NZ)(thetrans-Tasman evidenceregime)shouldremaintoprotectagainstinappropriateuseoftheregime.
Ajudgeofalowercourtshouldbeabletograntleavetoissueatrans-Tasmansubpoena incivilproceedingsbeforethatcourtorbeforeaprescribedtribunal.(InAustralia,this powershouldalsobeextendedtomagistrates.)
Thetrans-Tasmanevidenceregime
Thetrans-TasmanevidenceregimeisfoundintheEvidence and Procedure (New
Zealand) Act 1994 (Cth)andtheEvidence Amendment Act 1994(NZ).Ithastwocomponents:
Subpoenasissuedbyacourtinonecountrycanbeservedonawitnessintheother.(A subpoenaisadocumentthatrequiresapersontogiveevidence,orproduceadocumentor thing,orboth.)Thewitnesscanberequiredtotraveltogivetheevidenceintheother countryortogivetheevidencefromtheirowncountrybyvideolinkortelephone.
Evidencecanbetaken,orsubmissionsmade,fromtheothercountrybyvideolinkor telephone.
Theregimeappliestoarangeofcourtsineachcountry.Itcanalsobeextendedtocertain tribunalsasiftheywerecourts.However,todate,notribunalshavebeenincluded.
Atpresent,atrans-Tasmansubpoenacanbeissuedinanyproceedingsotherthancriminalor familyproceedings.However,itcanonlybeservedintheothercountrywiththeleaveofajudge ofahighercourt,evenifproceedingsaretakingplaceinalowercourt.Factorstakeninto
accountingrantingleaveincludetheimportanceoftheevidenceandwhetheritcouldbe obtainedinanotherwaywithoutsignificantlygreatercostandwithlessinconveniencetothe witness.
Awitnessonwhomatrans-Tasmansubpoenahasbeenservedcanapplytohaveitsetaside.The applicationismadetothecourtthatgrantedleavetoservethesubpoena.Thesubpoenamaybe setasideif,forexample,complyingwithitwouldcausehardshiporseriousinconvenience.Ifthe witnessmustgiveevidenceinpersonintheothercountry,asubpoenacanbesetasidewherethe witnessdoesnothavetraveldocumentsormaybeprosecutedforacriminaloffenceinthat countryorcouldbedetainedtheretoserveasentence.
Ifthepersongivingevidenceagrees,evidencecanbetakenorsubmissionsheardbyvideolink ortelephoneinanyproceeding(includingcriminalproceedings).
Existingposition
Underthetrans-Tasmanevidenceregime,asubpoenaissuedinonecountrycanonlybeserved onawitnessintheotherwiththeleaveofahighercourtjudge. Whereasubpoenaisissuedbya lowercourt,aseparateapplicationmustbemadetoahighercourtbeforeservicecanoccur.
Submissions
Of the submissions that addressed this issue, the overwhelming majority were in favour of retainingtheleaverequirement. Submissions also indicated strong support for lower court judgesbeingabletograntleave.
Reasonsforrecommendation
Therequirementforawitnesstoansweranoverseassubpoenaandappearinpersonbeforean overseascourt(oratleastappearbyvideoortelephonelink)ispotentiallymoreburdensome
thanarequirementtoappearbeforeadomesticcourt.Thereisalsopotentialformisusetoharass
ordeliberatelyinconvenienceawitness.Theleaverequirementthereforeprotectsagainstthe inappropriateuseofasubpoenaagainstawitnessintheothercountry.
However,additionalcost,inconvenienceanddelaymayoccurbyhavingtoapplytoahigher court.Wethereforeproposedinthediscussionpaperthatleavetoserveatrans-Tasman subpoenaincivilproceedingsshouldbeabletobegrantedbyajudgeofalowercourtin proceedingsbeforethatlowercourt,orbeforeatribunal.InAustralia‘magistrates’arealso judicialofficers,andthereforeshouldalsobeabletograntleavetoservetrans-Tasman subpoenasincivilproceedingsbeforetheirowncourt,oraprescribedtribunal.NewZealand doesnothaveanequivalenttotheAustralianmagistrate.
Werecommendretainingtheleaverequirementasanimportantsafeguard. However,inline withtheviewsexpressedinamajorityofsubmissions,werecommendthatlowercourtjudges shouldbeabletograntleavetoserveasubpoenainproceedingsbeforethatlowercourtora tribunal.
Recommendation 7: Court appearance by video link or telephone
Anapplicantforastayofcivilproceedingsundertheproposedtrans-Tasmanregime (seeRecommendations1and5),andtheirlawyer,shouldhavetherighttoappear remotely,withthecourtdecidingwhetherthisisdonebytelephoneorvideolink.
Forothercourtappearancesincivilproceedings,apartyresidingintheothercountry shouldbeallowedtoappearbytelephoneorvideolinkwithleaveofthecourt.Their lawyerwouldalsobeabletoappearremotelywithleave. Lawyersshouldnotbeableto appearremotelyunlesseithertheyhavetherighttoappearbeforethatcourt(because theyareregisteredinthatplaceundertheTrans-TasmanMutualRecognition Arrangementorotherwise),orthecourtallowsthemtoappearwithoutlocal
registration.
Lawyerscouldseekleavetoappearwithoutlocalregistrationonlyiftheywere registeredwheretheirclientresidedandtheywouldbeappearingremotelyfromthat place.
Existingposition
Telephoneandvideolinktechnologyisalreadyusedunderthetrans-Tasmanevidenceregimeby witnessesandlawyers. Thisuseoftechnologyreducestheneedforwitnessestotraveltothe othercountrytogiveevidence.Althoughtheexistingtrans-Tasmanevidenceregimeappliesto boththetakingofevidenceandthemakingofsubmissions,weareonlyawareofitbeingused wherewitnessesaregivingevidence.
Usingelectronictechnologytofacilitateremoteappearancesbypartiesandlawyershasthe potentialtoreducethecostandinconvenienceofphysicallyattendingcourtintrans-Tasman litigation.
The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA) between Australia and New Zealand envisages a lawyer from one country offering services to someone based in the other country. Todothis,alawyerisrequiredtoberegisteredinthecountrywheretheclientis
based. TTMRAenablesalawyerregisteredinoneplacetoobtainregistrationinanotherwithout
satisfying additional local requirements in that second country. However, the lawyer must still meet on-going local registration requirements that are imposed on all lawyers registered in that place,includingpayinglocalregistrationfees.
Submissions
Submissionsweresupportiveoftheproposalstomakegreateruseoftechnology,althoughsome raisedthequestionofwhoshouldbearthecost. Wenotethat,althoughcosts(whichshould reduceovertimeastechnologyimprovesandbecomesmorewidespread)wouldinitiallybethe responsibilityofthepartyapplyingtoappearremotely,thosecostscouldbefactoredintoany awardofcostseventuallymadeagainsttheotherparty.
Viewsweredividedontheremoteappearanceoflawyersinproceedingsgenerally. Some submissionsexpressedaviewthatrequiringregistrationunderTTMRAwouldbeonerous, particularlyforone-offappearances.
Reasonsforrecommendation
Inordertoreducethecostandinconvenienceofphysicallyattendingcourtintrans-Tasman litigation,werecommendthatpartiesseekingastayofproceedingsundertheproposedtrans- Tasmanregime,andtheirlawyer,shouldbeabletoappearfromtheothercountryasofright. Thecourtshoulddecidethetechnologytobeused.
Inthediscussionpaper,weproposedthat,inotherproceedings,lawyersshouldalsobeableto appear remotely. ThiswouldrequireregistrationundertheTTMRA.
Therequesttoappearremotelywillmostlikelycomefromapersonwishingtoberepresentedby theirlocallawyerinproceedingsintheothercountry. Boththepartyandthelawyerwillexpect theirrelationshiptobegovernedbylocalrulesandnottherulesoftheplaceofthecourt. Thisis differentfromthesituationenvisagedbyTTMRAwherethelawyerandclient’shomebases wouldbedifferent. Wealsoacknowledgethatamandatoryregistrationrequirementcould
depriveapersonoftheopportunitytousetheirlocallawyerinone-offproceedingsintheother country,unlesstheirlocallawyerwasregistered(orwillingtoregister)undertheTTMRA.
Wethereforeconsiderthatlawyerswithouttherighttoappearbeforethecourtinquestion shouldbeallowedtoappearbyvideolinkortelephoneconferencewiththeleaveofthecourt. Thecourtcouldrefuseleaveinsituationswhereitwasapparentthatlawyerswerecircumventing theTTMRArequirements(egappearingwithoutasatisfactoryreasonforaclientresidentinthe placewherethecourtis,ormakingmultipleappearancesonunrelatedproceedingsbeforethe same court). Althoughalawyermightnotberegisteredinthejurisdictionwherethecourtis situated,thecourtwouldstillhaveeffectivesanctionstocontroltheirconduct. Thesewould includedecliningleavetoappearinfuture,makingacomplainttotheprofessionalregulatorin thelawyer’shomejurisdictionandsanctionsforcontempt.
Statutoryprovisionswouldbeneededtogiveappropriateprivileges,immunitiesandprotections tothoseappearingremotely.
III:Civilpenalties,finesandsubpoenasincriminalproceedings
Recommendation 8: Enforcing civil pecuniary penalty orders
Acivilpecuniarypenaltyordermadeinonecountryshouldbeenforceableintheother asaciviljudgmentundertheproposedtrans-Tasmanregime.Either country could excludeparticularpecuniarypenaltyregimesintheothercountryfromenforcement.
Existingposition
BothAustraliaandNewZealandallowcourtstoimposecivilpecuniarypenaltiesforbreachof certainregulatoryrequirements. Civilpecuniarypenaltyordersimposedbyacourtinone countryarenotcurrentlyenforceableintheother. Thisunderminesthestrongmutualinterest eachcountryhasintheintegrityoftrans-Tasmanmarketsandtheeffectiveenforcementofeach other’sregulatoryregimes.
Submissions
Mostsubmissionssupportedtheproposedapproach.However,differentviewswereexpressed aboutwhetherparticularpenaltyregimesshouldbeexpresslyprescribedforinclusioninthe proposed trans-Tasman regime(a‘positive’listapproach),orwhethertheregimeshould apply to allpenaltyregimesotherthanthoseexpresslyexcluded(a‘negative’list).
Reasonsforrecommendation
Civilpecuniarypenaltiesplayasignificantroleinencouragingcompliancewitharegulatory regime. Inrecognitionofthemutualinterestineffectivelyenforcingeachother’sregulatory regimes,werecommendthatcivilpecuniarypenaltyordersfromonecountryshouldbecapable ofbeingenforcedintheotherundertheproposedtrans-Tasmanregime. Eachcountrycould excludeparticularcivilpecuniarypenaltyregimesifitconsideredthisappropriate. Thiswould bedonebyspecifyingtheexcludedregimesinsubordinatelegislation.Thepublicpolicy exceptionthatappliestoenforcementofjudgmentsgenerallywouldalsoapply. Thiswould provideanadditionalsafeguardbyallowingthecourtstorefusetoenforceajudgmentinany particularcasewheretodosowouldbecontrarytopublicpolicy.
Recommendation 9: Enforcing fines for certain regulatory offences
Finesimposedinonecountryforcriminaloffencesundercertainregulatoryregimes shouldbeenforceableintheother,inthesamewayasciviljudgmentdebts. Onlyfines foroffencesunderaregulatoryregimethataffectstheeffectiveness,integrityand efficiencyoftrans-Tasmanmarketsandinwhichbothcountrieshaveastrongmutual interestshouldbeincluded.
Existingposition
Currentlyacriminalfineimposedinonecountryisnotenforceableintheother. Thisisa problemwherethefineisimposedunderaregulatoryregimethatimpactsontheintegrityof marketsinwhicheachcountryhasastrongmutualinterest.
Submissions
Amajorityofsubmissionswhichaddressedthisissuesupportedtheproposedapproachwith mostagreeingwiththelistofproposedstatutes. Severalsubmittersurgedcautiongiventhe proposal’snovelelements. Somesubmissionsproposedadditionalstatutesforinclusion.
Reasonsforrecommendation
Werecommendthatcertaincriminalfinesshouldbeenforceableintheothercountry. The regimewouldapplytofinesforoffencesunderaregulatoryregimethataffectstheeffectiveness, integrityandefficiencyoftrans-Tasmanmarkets. Thelistofstatutescouldbesupplemented
overtime. Asastart,werecommendincludingfinesunderthefollowinglegislation:
Australia
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)(excludingindustryspecificparts)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Banking Act 1959 (Cth)
Consumer protection and product safety legislation at State and Territory level
Occupational regulation legislation at State and Territory level
NewZealand
Commerce Act 1986(excludingindustry-specificparts)
Companies Act 1993
Fair Trading Act 1986
Securities Act 1978
Securities Markets Act 1988
Takeovers Act 1993
FinancialReportingAct1993
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989
Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003
Occupational regulation legislation
Officialsarecurrentlyworkingtoidentifyotherrelevantregulatorystatutes,orpartsofstatutes, tobeaddedtothelist,whichshouldbeprescribedbysubordinatelegislation.
Undertheproposedtrans-Tasmanregime,suchfineswouldbeenforceableintheothercountry inthesamewayasaciviljudgmentdebt. Thiswouldaddresspotentialconcernsaboutone countryusingitsfinecollectionpowerstoenforcetheother’scriminalsanctions.
Thestandardpublicpolicyexceptiontoenforcementwouldapply,andthedefendantwouldbe abletoseekastayofenforcementtochallengethefineintheoriginalcourt. Duetothe sensitivityofenforcingcriminalfines,theycouldonlyberegisteredforenforcementinahigher court.
Toaddressconcernsthattheproposalwouldresultinactivitiesinonecountrybeingregulatedin theother,arealandsubstantialconnectionwouldneedtobeshownbetweenthecountry imposingthefineandtheconductamountingtotheoffence. Wethereforealsorecommendthat thecircumstancesunderwhichafineunderaparticularregimewouldbeenforceableintheother country should be prescribed.
Recommendation 10: Extending trans-Tasman subpoenas to criminal proceedings
SubpoenasincriminalproceedingsshouldbeabletobeservedacrosstheTasmanwith theleaveofajudgeundertheEvidence and Procedure (New Zealand) Act 1994 (Cth) andtheEvidence Amendment Act 1994(NZ)tofacilitatethetakingofevidence.(In Australiathispowershouldalsobeextendedtomagistrates.)
Existingposition
Undertheexistingtrans-Tasmanevidenceregime,evidencefromawillingwitnesscanbetaken betweenAustralianandNewZealandcourtsbyvideolinkortelephoneforthepurposesof criminalproceedings. However,asubpoenaunderthetrans-Tasmanevidenceregimecannot currentlybeissuedincriminalproceedings. Therefore,ifawitnessisunwillingtocooperate, evidencecanonlybeobtainedunderlessconvenientprocedures,suchastheMutual Assistance inCriminalMattersAct1987(Cth)andtheMutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 (NZ).AmutualassistanceevidencerequestisactionedatthediscretionoftheAttorney-General oftherelevantcountry.
Submissions
Therewasgeneralsupportforextendingtheregime.
Reasonsforrecommendation
Werecommendthatthetrans-Tasmanevidenceregimebeextendedtoallowsubpoenastobe issuedincriminalproceedings. ThiswouldmeanthataNewZealandwitnessincriminal proceedingsonfootinAustraliacouldberequiredtogiveevidenceinpersonbeforethe AustraliancourtortogiveevidencebyvideolinkortelephonefromNewZealand,andvice versa.
Requiringwitnessestogiveevidencebytelephoneorvideolink,orinpersonbeforethecourt, wouldallowthecourttoseeandhearthetestimony,andhelpittoassesscredibility. Various safeguards,suchastheneedtoobtainleavefromajudgeandtheabilityofwitnessestoapplyto havesubpoenasservedonthemsetasidewherecompliancewouldcausehardshipand inconvenience,wouldpreventmisuse.
IV:Othermatters
Inthediscussionpaper,wenotedareaswhereco-operationinitiativeswerealreadyunderwayandinvitedcommentonotherregulatorycontextsthatwouldbenefitfromfurthertrans-Tasman co-operation. Submissionssuggestedseveralareas:powerstoinvestigatemaritimeaccidentsand incidents;takeovers;corporatemattersnotcoveredbyconsumerprotectionandfinancialservices. Werecommendthatthesecommentsbeprovidedtorelevantagencies,aspossible
areasforfuturework.
ATTACHMENT A
Termsof ReferenceforaJointWorkingGroupof Officialson
Trans-TasmanCourtProceedingsandRegulatoryEnforcement
Background
NewZealandandAustraliahavetakensignificantstepstofacilitatecloserinvestigatory, regulatoryandjudicialcooperationbetweenthetwocountries.
Theseinclude:
trans-TasmanMutualRecognitionArrangementsforthepurposeofrecognisingwithin AustraliaregulatorystandardsadoptedinNewZealandregardinggoodsandoccupationsand viceversa;
1992reformsrelatingtoenforcementofcertainjudgments;
legislationinbothcountriesfacilitatingthetakingofevidenceinonecountryforusein proceedingsintheother;
theenforcementofAustraliantaxjudgmentsinNewZealandandviceversa;and
Australian andNewZealandregulatorscooperatingonawiderangeofinvestigationand enforcement activities.
Therearealsoarrangementsintheprocessofdevelopmentfortrans-Tasmancooperationinthe areasoftherapeuticproductregulation,cross-bordersecuritiesofferingsandcivilaviation.
Itisdesirabletoreviewtheexistingtrans-Tasmancourtproceedingsandregulatoryenforcement arrangementstoidentifyanyissuesthatmayneedtobeaddressed.
Theseissuescouldinclude:
whetherthe1994evidencereformsshouldbeextendedtocovercriminalproceedingsand family proceedings;
whetherthedifferenceinthetestsappliedbythecourtsofthetwocountriesfordeclining jurisdiction (differentforum non conveniensrules)hashadanyadverseconsequencesthat canorshouldbeaddressedlegislatively;
whetherproposalsfortrans-Tasmanenforcementofinjunctionsandothernon-moneycourt orders should be pursued;
whetherproposalsfortherecognitionandenforcementofcriminalsanctionsintheregulatory area should be pursued;
thepowersofregulatorsandotherenforcementauthoritiesinthetrans-Tasmancontext;
whetherthereareanybarrierstotakingenforcementproceedingsagainstapersonbasedin onecountrywhobreachestheother’sregulatoryregimes;and
recognitionandenforcementofjudgmentsshouldbedeveloped.
OfficialsinbothAustraliaandNewZealandbelieveitistimelytoreviewcurrentarrangementsrelatingtotrans-Tasmancourtproceedingsandregulatoryenforcement.
Termsofreference
The Working Group will examine the effectiveness and appropriateness of current arrangements thatrelatetocivil(includingfamily)proceedings,civilpenaltyproceedingsandcriminal proceedings(wherethoseproceedingsrelatetoregulatorymatters5).
Thosearrangementsinclude:
investigatory and regulatory powers; serviceofinitiatingandotherprocess; taking of evidence; and
recognitionandenforcementofcourtordersandjudgments(includingcivilpenaltiesand
criminalfines).
The Working Group will:
identifyanyproblemsthatexistwiththecurrentarrangements;
consideramoregeneralschemefortrans-Tasmanserviceofprocess,takingofevidenceand recognitionandenforcementofcourtordersandjudgments;
consideramoregeneralschemefortrans-Tasmancooperationbetweenregulators;
undertakeappropriatedomesticconsultation;and proposeoptionsthatmaybepursued.
Membershipandmeetings
TheWorkingGroupwillconsistofseniorofficialsfromtherelevantGovernmentagenciesin eachcountry. TheNewZealandmemberswillincluderepresentativesoftheMinistryofJustice, theMinistryofEconomicDevelopment,theDepartmentofthePrimeMinisterandCabinet,and theMinistryofForeignAffairsandTrade. TheAustralianmemberswillincluderepresentatives fromtheAttorney-General’sDepartment,TreasuryandtheDepartmentofthePrimeMinister
and Cabinet.
Thegroupwillbeco-chairedbyaseniorAustralianofficialfromtheAttorney-General’s
DepartmentandaseniorNewZealandofficialfromtheMinistryofJustice.
5TheWorkingGroupwillnotreviewcurrentarrangementsforextraditionbetweenthetwocountriesnorthe broaderareasdealtwithunderthecriminallaw.