LAWS409 Private International Law Research And Writing Assignment 2026 | Otago

LAWS 409 Research And Writing Assignment

Instructions

This compulsory assignment, which is part of the Research and Writing programme (LAWS498), is worth 20 per cent of your final mark for this course. It assesses your ability to conduct independent legal research.

A. Length

The maximum word limit for the assignment is 2,000 words including footnotes. You do not have to write 2,000 words. Do not include a bibliography. For each 100 words over the word limit, 5 per cent will be deducted. Thus, you can write up to 2,099 words without a penalty. The assignment requires you to include an explanation of how you identified the key sources. This explanation, too, forms part of the word count.

B. Format And Referencing

Your assignment must be typed and must comply with the New Zealand Law Style Guide. An online edition of the Style Guide may be found at http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/style-guide/. Use footnotes rather than in-text referencing.

C. Submission

The assignment must be submitted by 10 am on Friday, 22 May 2026. Please submit the final version of your assignment via Aoroa, as a Word document (.doc, .docx). If you have any difficulty submitting your assignment to Aoroa, please email law@otago.ac.nz. Late submissions of the assignment are accepted but will attract a penalty of 5 marks per day out of a total possible score for the assignment of 100 marks. If you would like to apply for an extension, please contact me at least 24 hours before the due date.

D. Marking

The assignment assesses the core skills of independent legal research and analysis. This means that the assignment requires you to identify issues and sources that are not covered in lectures. It concerns areas of private international law that do not form part of the lecture syllabus.

The assignment also assesses your ability to communicate your analysis, which includes the use of a coherent and logical structure, clear expression, correct grammar and accurate referencing.

The assignment is marked out of 100. There are no specific marks allocated to the questions in para (a)-(d) of the assignment.

E. Student Questions

For reasons of fairness, I cannot discuss the assignment with students on an individual basis. If there is a question that you think ought to be answered, please post it on the Discussion Board on Aoroa.

F. Use Of Generative AI

The use of generative AI for this assignment is permitted but discouraged. If you use generative AI, you must disclose the nature and extent of your use.

* Alice Coppard and others New Zealand Law Style Guide (3rd ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018).

Assignment Task

Your firm acts for NZ Ltd. Please draft a memorandum for your partner, in line with the partner’s instructions to you set out in (a)-(d) below.

NZ Ltd is a New Zealand company that is involved in two commercial disputes: one with Ruritania Inc, a Ruritanian company, and one with Pipland Inc, a Pipland company.

The dispute with Ruritania Inc is a contractual dispute. NZ Ltd has brought proceedings in New Zealand against Ruritania Inc for breach of contract. NZ Ltd served, or purportedly served, Ruritania Inc at its head office in Ruritania under r 6.27 of the High Court Rules. Ruritania Inc has objected to the New Zealand court’s jurisdiction under r 5.49. Its objection is based on a rule of Ruritanian law (“the Ruritanian service rule”) that states: “foreign proceedings may not be served on parties in Ruritania except in accordance with the procedures of the Hague Service Convention (if the foreign country is a party to the Convention)”.

The dispute with Pipland Inc involves a misrepresentation allegedly made by NZ Ltd at a business meeting in New Zealand. Pipland Inc has brought proceedings against NZ Ltd in Pipland.

Your partner says to you:

(a) What are the implications of the Ruritanian service rule, if any, for our proceedings against Ruritania Inc? Assume that there are no (other) jurisdictional barriers to our claim (ie the court would assume jurisdiction over Ruritania Inc based on the requirements in r 6.27 and 6.29). Please note that Ruritania Inc has obtained expert evidence on the meaning of the Ruritanian service rule as a matter of Ruritanian law. We are not interested at this stage in contesting the evidence, and you can assume that, for the purposes of Ruritanian law, the rule means what it says.

(b) I am worried that Pipland Inc will be able to obtain evidence from Ms Smith for use in the Pipland proceeding. Ms Smith is an independent consultant who was at the business meeting that is the source of the dispute.

(i) Could she be forced to give evidence for use in the Pipland proceeding as a matter of New Zealand law? In other words, could a New Zealand court require her to give such evidence in the Pipland proceeding?

(ii) Would the New Zealand court apply New Zealand law to determine questions of relevance, admissibility etc?

(c) Any Pipland judgment against our client will be enforceable in New Zealand (and potentially elsewhere). We are considering advice to the client whether it is time to render itself judgment proof by shifting assets to a country where the judgment would not be enforceable. We may have to act fast if there is a chance that Pipland Inc will obtain a freezing order from the New Zealand court in aid of the Pipland proceeding. Would the New Zealand court have jurisdiction to make such a freezing order, in relation to the client’s assets located in New Zealand and in other countries?

(d) Please briefly explain in your memo how you found the relevant authorities and/or how you confirmed that they are the most relevant authorities, so that I know I can trust your research.