Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault SA v Zhang

Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault SA and another party (the Renault companies) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned an action commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by Mr Zhang, who alleged negligent design and manufacture of a motor vehicle overseas by the Renault companies. Mr Zhang suffered continuing damage in New South Wales following a motor vehicle accident in New Caledonia. The Renault companies, registered in Australia but not carrying on business there, applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that New South Wales was a clearly inappropriate forum. The primary judge granted the stay, but the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, finding that the primary judge had miscarried in his exercise of discretion.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the primary judge's discretion had miscarried, and consequently, whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales should have declined jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings. This involved determining the correct approach to the doctrine of *forum non conveniens* in the context of international torts, particularly the relevance of the *lex causae* (the substantive law governing the dispute). The Court also considered the relationship between the Supreme Court Rules authorising orders declining jurisdiction and the common law principles of *forum non conveniens*, and whether the circumstances, including the potential application of foreign law, rendered New South Wales a clearly inappropriate forum.

The High Court considered the principles governing the exercise of discretion to stay proceedings on the grounds of *forum non conveniens*. It examined the application of the "double actionability" rule, derived from *Phillips v Eyre*, which generally requires a tort to be actionable by the law of the forum and by the law of the place where the tort occurred. However, the Court also considered subsequent High Court decisions, such as *Voth* and *Pfeiffer*, which have refined the choice of law rules for torts. The Court noted that the Court of Appeal had found the primary judge's decision to grant a stay was decisively influenced by an erroneous view that French law would be the *lex causae* applied in New South Wales. The High Court ultimately agreed with the Court of Appeal that the primary judge's discretion had miscarried, as the application of the correct choice of law principles would have altered the balance of considerations relevant to the *forum non conveniens* determination.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.