Zhang v Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault SA

The claimant, Mr Zhang, suffered severe injuries in a car accident in New Caledonia while driving a Renault hire car. He subsequently brought proceedings in New South Wales against the foreign corporations Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA and Renault Automobiles SA, alleging negligent design and manufacture of the vehicle, specifically its roof structure, which he claimed was of insufficient strength to prevent crushing in a rollover. The defendants are foreign corporations with no current presence in Australia beyond owning the Renault trademark.

The central legal issues before the court were whether New South Wales was the clearly inappropriate forum for the trial of the action, and consequently, which law should govern the dispute. The claimant argued that the accident, while occurring in New Caledonia, had caused damage in New South Wales, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was required to consider the principles of private international law, including the doctrine of the clearly inappropriate forum and the choice of law rules applicable to tortious claims.

The court, applying the principles of private international law, considered the "practical considerations" of the trial venue. It noted that the claimant, his family, and his expert and medical witnesses resided in Australia, while the defendants' experts were likely to come from Europe or the United States. The court also weighed the difficulties the claimant would face in obtaining legal representation and meeting the costs of litigation in New Caledonia or France, particularly given his modest means and the defendants' superior resources. The court acknowledged that while witnesses to the accident resided in New Caledonia and France, their evidence could potentially be taken on commission. The court also considered the procedural disadvantages for the claimant under French law regarding discovery and interrogatories.

The court ultimately found that New South Wales was not a clearly inappropriate forum for the trial. The court determined that the choice of law should be the lex loci delicti, the law of the place where the tort occurred, which was New Caledonia. However, the court also considered the double actionability rule, which requires that the act be actionable by the law of the forum and by the law of the place where the act occurred. The court concluded that the action could proceed in New South Wales, but the substantive law to be applied would be that of New Caledonia.