New zeland law of armed conflict9/23/2023 ![]() Without a good grasp of the concept, there is a risk of methodological confusion. However, because of its complex interrelationship with choice of law, it is important that the functions of subject-matter jurisdiction are clearly understood and carefully circumscribed. It can play a useful role in shaping the proper reach of the court’s adjudicatory powers. Subject-matter jurisdiction is an important concept (see CLNZ, ch 2.E). But it has received increased attention in the New Zealand courts over the past few years (see, eg, Almarzooqi v Salih NZHC 330, NZFLR 501 Mao v Findlay NZHC 521 at Johnston v Johnston NZHC 2887, NZFLR 594 at ). As a concept, subject-matter jurisdiction has – at least traditionally – been much less visible than personal jurisdiction. For example, a New Zealand court may lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a claim involving questions of title to foreign land. Subject-matter jurisdiction plays a more targeted role. Personal jurisdiction is the main vehicle for determining whether a New Zealand court will exercise jurisdiction over a particular defendant. Lun v Kong: confusion about subject-matter jurisdictionĬross-border adjudicatory jurisdiction can be split into two types: personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |