Paper discussing rules and concept regarding cross border tort disputes in the arena of private international law.

1. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
1
RESEARCH PAPER ON :-
“CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORT
DISPUTES”
PARUL SOLANKI

2. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
2
CONTENTS:-
1. REFERENCES
2. CASE LAWS
3. INTRODUCTION
4. CHOICE OF LAW
5. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORT
DISPUTES.
6. The lex fori,
7. The lex loci delicti, and
8. The proper law or social environment theory.
9. POSITION IN ENGLISH LAW
10. POSITION IN COMMON LAW
11. POSITION IN INDIA
12.EUROPEAN HARMONISATION PROVISION
13.CONCLUSION.
REFERENCES:
 Detailed comments by Dr E B Crawford and Dr J M Carruthers, School of Law, University of
Glasgow to the Select Committee on European Union. [1]

3. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
3
 Mayss, Abla (1996). Statutory Reform of Choice of Law in Tort and Delict: A Bitter Pill or a Cure
for the Ill? 2 Web JCLI. [2]
 .C. Cheshire, P.M. North & J.J. Fawcett, Cheshire and North’s Private
International Law 605 (13 ed. 1999).
 [ii] F.E Noronha, Private International Law In India 68-69 (1 ed. 2010).
 [iii] R. Hayward & A. J. Mayss, Conflict of Laws 1 (4 ed. 2006).
Diwan & P. Diwan, Private International Law: Indian and English 551 (4 ed.1998).
Westlake,A Treatise onPrivate InternationalLaw,or,The Conflictof Laws withPrincipal Reference toits
Practice inThe EnglishandOtherCognate Systemsof Jurisprudence 282 (7 ed.1858).
[xx] See W.W. Cook,The Logical and Legal Basesof The Conflictof Laws 345 (2 ed.1942); See alsoW.W.
Cook,The Logical andLegal Basesof the Conflictof Laws,33 Yale Law Journal 457, 466 (1924)
(discussinghowtodetermine the place wherethe tortwascommitted).
Machado v. Fontes,2 Q.B.231 (1987, Queen’sBench)
Govindan Nair v Achuta Menon, (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad 433.
[xliii] The Kotah Transport Ltd. v. The Jhalawar Bus Service Ltd., A.I.R.1960 Raj. 22
//www.lawctopus.com/academike/cross-border-tort-disputes/
CASE LAWS:

4. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
4
A. PHILLIPS V EYRE
B. BOYS VS CHAPLIN
C. ROERIG V VALIANT TRAWLERS (2002)
D.MULTINATIONAL GAS AND PETROCHEMICAL CO VS
MULTINATIONAL GAS & PETROCHEMICAL .
E. EDMUNDS VS SIMMONDS (2001)
F. MORIN VS BONHAMS AND BROOKS LTD. (2003)
G.KOTAH TRANSPORT VS THE JHALANDER BUS
SERVICE LTD.
Introduction :-

5. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
5
The problemof the appropriate applicable law inthe case of cross-bordertortsisextremely
complicated.The reasonbehindthisisthatata verybasiclevel of the factsof a tort relatedclaimthere
are multiple connectingfactorssuchas the place of the tort, the nationalityanddomicile of the parties,
etc.To addto thisbasic concern,inthe case of crossbordertorts an addedproblemof determiningthe
actual jurisdictionwhere the tortwascommittedarises.Inadditionthere are alsoawide varietyof
tortiousissuesthatmayarise – limitation,damages,etc.The questionthatthenarisesiswhetherthe
same lawshould governall of these issues.Itisimportanttonote that there are alsodifferenttypesof
tort – negligence,nuisance,defamation,etc.Thisthenbegsthe question,shouldthe same rule in
determiningthe applicable lawsapplyregardlessof the type of tort?An additional issue toconsideris
that applicationof aforeignlawmayleadto liabilitybeingimposedfortortsthatare unknown inthe
domesticjurisdiction.
An expansive setof solutionshasbeenusedbyvariousnationsinordertodeal withthis issue andeven
amongthese solutionsthere hasbeenconsiderableevolutionoveraperiodof time.Thispaperdiscusses
the various“choice of law rules”followedacrossjurisdictions –lex fori,lex loci delicti,double
actionability,etc. –focusingspecificallyonthe positioninEnglandaswell asinIndia.
Choice of Law :-
In the case of a Private International Law dispute,the courtwhere the claimhasbeenbrought,after
decidingonthe matterof jurisdiction –whetherithasthe powerto hearthe case – mustdetermine
“whichlaw”to applyinresolvingthe dispute.Thisprocessof electingthe applicable law isknownas
“Choice of Law.” The choice of lawisnot encompassingof the case as a whole,i.e.choice of law does
not functionas“one case one law.Each legal issue inacase mustbe decidedinaccordance tothe
appropriate lawandtherefore choice of law ina dispute isonthe basisof the legal issuesbroughtupin
the claim;and it isimportanttonote that there can be anynumberof issuesina claim.A conflictof laws
inchoice of lawariseswhenthere ismore thanone “connectingfactor”(the pointof contact, which
mattersthe most or isthe mostrelevant) involved.Inchoosingbetweentwolaws,the intensityand
nature of the linkbetweenthe lawandthe case playsa huge role.Indeterminingthe intensityand
nature of the relationshipmultiple factorssuchasdomicile,nationality,place of incident,canplaya
role.Andsometimes,manyof these considerationsthemselveshave different meaningsunderdifferent
legal systems. Therefore inordertodeal withthisextensiveambiguity,certainsetsof rules –lex fori,lex
loci,lex causae,etc., – are appliedinorderto determinethe applicable law.Theserulesare referredto
as “choice of lawrules.”

6. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
6
Choice of Law in Cross Border Tort Disputes
Torts as commonlyunderstoodinCommonlaw are civil wrongsagainstanindividual,hisproperty,
and/orreputation.Thisincludesnegligence,trespass,defamation,etc.Incertaininstancesthe actmay
qualifyasbotha tort and a crime at the same time,forexample assault.A tortiousactmayalso arise
froma contractual background,inwhichcase the injuredpartyisgiventhe choice of suingeitherfor
breachof contract or damagesfor tort.The optionof claimingrelief eitherincontractor tort isoffered
inEnglishlawas well asIndia.
In the case of a tort the mostbasicprinciple inthe case of the law to be appliedislex loci delicti –the
lawof the place where the tortiousactivitywascommitted. However,thisclarityisavailable onlywhen
the tort is domesticinnature andthere isnot conflictof lawsinvolved.There are newermore
contemporaryapproachesadoptedbyvariousjurisdictions,suchas,the significantrelationshiprule,the
governmental interestapproach andthe comparative impairmentanalysisapproach. The mostbasic
and chronologicallythe oldestapproachhowever,inthe case of a tort or delicthasalwaysbeenlex loci
delicti.The real problemof choice of lawarisesinthe case of cross bordertorts, . withthe arrival of a
foreignelement.
Two suchscenariosare, (a) whenthe act iscommittedinone countrybut the proceedingsare brought
forthin another.
(b) whenthe act is committedinone countrybutits effectisfeltinanothercountry.
Nowwiththe possibilityof conflictinglaws –incase (a) the law of the forumwhere the claimisbrought,
i.e.lex fori,orthe lawof the forumwhere the tortwas committed,i.e.lexloci delicti;andincase (b) the
lawof the forumwhere the tortiousact wascommittedorthe law of the place where itseffectswere
felt;the questionthatthenarisesiswhichof the competinglawsmustbe chosenandonwhat basis.
In orderto solve thisconflictinchoice of law,inthe case of cross bordertorts,the country whose law
will be chosentosolve the dispute isselectedthroughapplicationof the rulesof Private International
Law. There are three maintheoriesinrelationtochoice of law incross bordertort cases,theyare:-
The firstattemptstoestablishacoherentchoice of law rule fortort casesinvolvingaforeignlaw
elementvariedbetweenfavouringthe lex fori (i.e.the law of the court) andthe lex loci delicticommissi
(i.e.the lawof the place where the tortwas committed).The publicpolicyof territorial sovereigntywas
alwaysthe principal consideration.Hence,the forumcourtsclaimedtheirrighttoapplytheirlawsto
determine whetheranylawsuitinitiatedintheirjurisdictionallowedaremedy.Equally,itisthe
commissionof atort that vestsa rightof actionin a claimantandtherefore,itshouldalwaysbe forthe

7. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
7
lawof the place where thatrightwas createdto determine the extentof anyremedyflowingfromit.In
the end,a compromise emergedwhere the lexloci delicti wasthe firstpointof reference butcourts
retainedadiscretiontosubstitute the lexfori if the foreignlaw wasdeemedunfairandotherpractical
considerationspointedtothe applicationof forumlaw.
. In 1971, the AmericanLawInstitute producedthe SecondConflictsRestatementsandsection6
providesthatthe applicable lawshouldbe the one withthe "mostsignificantrelationship"tothe tort.In
othercommonlawstates,a parallel movementoccurredandresultedinthe adoptionof aproperlaw
test.In substance,bothformsare similarintheirapproach.
 The lex fori,
 The lex loci delicti, and
 The proper law or social environment theory.
The Lex Fori Theory :-
Accordingto thisapproachthe applicable isthe law of the forumwhere the claimhasbeenbrought.The
applicationof lex fori israthersimplisticandstraightforwardasthere isnoneedto determine where the
tortiousactivityoccurred,orto prove that itwas infact a tort inthe law of the country where the act
occurred.
Onthe otherhandthiscouldwork to the disadvantage of the defendantasthe plaintiff couldthen
indulge inforumshopping –choosingaforumthat is mostfavourable tohim.The defendantmay
become liable foranact, whichmayamountto a tort inthe forumstate – lex fori – but notin the place
where itwascommitted– lex loci delicti.
Contrarily,if the act committedisnota tort underlex fori,butitis under-lex loci delicti –the plaintiff
doesnotsufferas evenif he cannotsuccessfullybringaclaiminthe forumstate,he can bringit inthe
place where the act has beencommitted.
FriedrichKarl vonSavignyanadvocate of the lex fori methodproposedthattortiousliabilityis
comparable tocriminal liabilityandthusiscloselyrelatedtothe publicpolicyof the forumstate and
therefore shouldbe governedbylex fori.
ThisviewiscriticisedbyC.F. Forsyth,whosaysthat Savigny’sview opinionhasbeendiscreditedtoa
large extent,asthere isa cleardemarcationbetweencrime andtorttoday.Forsythalsogoesonto

8. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
8
criticize the lex fori approachforbeing“fickle”asitisonlyestablished“ex postfacto”once the plaintiff
decideswhere he wishestosue.
There are barelyanyproponentsof the applicationof the lex fori theory inthe contemporaryworld as
evenwithitssimplicity,if itwere appliedasageneral rule,itwouldresultinarbitrarinessandunfair
decisions.Thusinaquestfor a more fairbasisfor choice of law,we move to the lex loci delicti theory.
The Lex Loci Delicti Theory :-
In accordance to thistheorythe applicable law inthe case of a cross bordertort oughtto be the law of
the place where the tortiousact hasbeencommitted.
Willis,J.,observedinPhillipsv.Eyre that“the civil liabilityarisingoutof a wrongderivesitsbirthfrom
the lawof the place,and itscharacter isdeterminedbythatlaw.”
Similarly,Westlakehasalsoopinedonthe matterthatin the eventof tortiousact that disruptsthe
social orderof anycountry,it isthe lawof that country where the acthas beencommittedthatmust
thenapplyas itwouldbe the bestauthorityof the matter.
The problemwiththe lex loci regime ariseswhenthe factsamountingtothe tortiousacttake place in
more than one country,i.e.the act iscommittedinone countryand the injuryisfeltinanother.Itthen
becomeshardto decide whichcountryisthenthe loci delicti –the place where the act commencedor
the place where the effectof the injurywasfelt.
Thiscan be dealtwithtoa certainextentif one adoptsthe view thatthe lex loci delicti theoryisbased
on the “vestedrightsdoctrine.”Inwhichcase,aplaintiff’sclaimisderivedfromthe law of the
jurisdictionwhere the injuryoccurredanddependsentirelyuponsuchlaw foritsexistence. Thus,when
the place where the act commencedorthe place where the effectof the injurywasfeltistwodifferent
states,the substantive lawof the state where the injuryoccursapplies.
Additionallytherecanalsobe problemsinapplyingthistheorywhenthe partieshave almostno
connectiontothe place where the tort occurred,i.e.the lex loci delicti maybe entirelycoincidental and
by chance.
For example acouple livinginstate Xare on vacationinstate Y, there is an accidentwhile theyare
drivinginstate Y and the wife isinjured.She wantstosue herhusband.The applicationof the lawsof

9. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
9
state Y insuch a case wouldmerelybe bychance andinthe eventthatthe lawsof state Y do not
supportherclaim(but state X’slawsdo) thiswouldbe highlyunfairandapplicationof state Y’slawswill
be arbitrary.
The real problemwiththe lex loci delicti theoryisnotthatis inherentlyunfairandarbitrary,butthat it is
not flexibleandcannotaddresseverysinglequestionincomplex situations.
The possibilityof unfairnessonlyarisesincomplex situations,likeinthe instance of the lex loci delicti
beingentirelyfortuitous.Inordertodeal withthisinefficiencyof the lex loci delictitheorythere wasa
move towardscreatinga “properlaw,”whichisbasedon “the most significantconnectionwiththe
chainof acts and circumstancesinthe particularcase in question.”
The Proper Law or Social Environment Theory :-
In accordance to thisapproach the applicable law mustbe the one thathas the most significant
connectionwiththe factsandcircumstancesin a particularclaim/case.
Lord Denningreiteratedthispositiontoacertainextentinthe case of Boysv. Chaplin,where he said
that a properlawof tort oughtto be determinedbyestablishingwhichlaw hasthe mostsignificant
connectiontoboththe partiesaswell asthe act done.
The properlawtheoryseekstofill the gapsinthe lex loci delicti theory.Inthe wordsof Morris,“a
properlawapproach,intelligentlyapplied,wouldfurnishamuch-neededflexibility”[xxviii] inthe process
of choice of law.
The main criticismtothistheoryof choice of law isthat it resultsina fairamountof uncertaintyand
unpredictability andwhile itisconcededthatinmostsituationsthere wouldn’tbe aneedtolookat a
lawoutside of lex loci delictiitisstill prudenttohave an approach thatis flexibleenoughtoinclude
complex situations aswell asthe normal ones.
The presumptive choice of lawrule fortortisthat the properlaw applies.Thisreferstothe law that has
the greatestrelevance tothe issuesinvolved.Inpublic policyterms,thisisusuallythe law of the place
where the keyelementsof the "wrong"were performedoroccurred(the lex loci delicti).Soif A isa
pedestrianinjuredbyB'snegligentdriving,the law of the state inwhichthe injuryoccurs wouldlogically
be appliedbecause,inpublicpolicyterms,the citizensof thatstate have a clearinterestinregulating
the standard of drivingontheirroads.That eitherorboth the partiesmighthave domicilesoutside that
state wouldbe irrelevant.But,if A buysa car from B inState X anddrivesitintoState Y where A is

10. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
10
injuredbya defectinthe car, One of the keyconsiderationsinanyconflictdispute isthe enforceability
of the resultingjudgment.Courtsare more willingtoacceptcaseswitha foreign law elementwhenone
of the partiesisdomiciledorhasresidence withintheirterritorial jurisdiction,orhasassetsagainst
whichjudgmentcanbe levied.
However,if the tortwas intentional,thereare twocompetingtheoriesastowhichlaw is the most
appropriate.Forexample,A writesadefamatoryletterinState Xandposts itto B in State Y, clearly
damagingthe reputationof Cin State Y. The initiatoryorsubjective theory providesthatthe properlaw
isthe lawof the state inwhichall the initial componentsof the tortoccurred.Inthe example given,A
may neverhave leftState Xandthe argumentwouldbe made thatState X wouldhave the betterclaim
to determine the extentof liabilityforthose who,whethertemporarilyornot,owe itallegiance.Hence,
if A senta reference toB aboutC in the ordinarycourse of business,orsubmittedforpublicationbyBa
reviewof anartisticworkby C, the policyclaimsof State X wouldbe strong.
The terminatoryor objective theory providesthatthe law of the state in whichthe lastcomponent
occurred(where the lossordamage was sustained) shouldbe the properlaw.Here,the argumentis
that unlessanduntil the damage issustained,the tortisnotcomplete.Unlike criminal law,thereisno
liabilityforattemptedtort.Hence,since the tortdoesnotexisttogive rise toliabilityuntil the letteris
readby B in State Y, onlyState Y hasan interestinthe applicationof itslaws.There isnointernational
agreementonwhichtheoryistobe preferred andeachstate therefore appliesitslocal choice of law
rules.Butthe enforceabilityof anyjudgmentwouldbe arelevantconsideration.Supposethatthe lawof
State X mightoffera partial or complete defence toA.Hence,Cnaturallypreferstoinvoke the
jurisdictionof State Y'scourts.If there isno systemforreciprocal andautomaticregistrationand
enforcementof judgmentsbetweenthe twostates,State Y(andany otherState in whichjurisdiction
mightbe sought) wouldbe reluctanttoaccept the case since no court likestowaste itstime inhearinga
case if itis notgoingto be enforceable.
THE POSITION IN ENGLISH LAW :-
General rule
Withthe exceptionof defamationwhichcontinuestoapplythe properlaw test,s10 Private
International Law (MiscellaneousProvisions)Act1995 abolishesthe double-actionabilitytest,ands11
appliesthe lex loci delicti rulesubjecttoan exceptionunders12 derivedfromBoysvChaplin(1971) AC

11. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
11
356 andRed SeaInsurance Co,Ltd. v BouyguesSA (1995) 1 AC 190. Thus,it is nolongernecessaryfor
the case to be basedon a tort actionable inEngland.The Englishcourtsmustapplywiderinternational
testsand respectanyremediesavailable underthe "Applicable Law"orlex causae includinganyruleson
whomay claim(e.g.whetherapersonal representativemayclaimfora fatal accident) andwhothe
relevantdefendantmaybe (i.e.the Englishcourtwouldhave toapplythe applicable law'sruleson
vicariousliabilityorthe identityof an"occupier"of land).
The firststepis forthe court to decide where the tortoccurred,whichmaybe complicatedif relevant
eventstookplace inmore thanone state.s11(2) distinguishesbetween:
• actionsfor personal injuries:itisthe law of the place where the individual sustainedthe injury;
• damage to property:itisthe lawof the place where the propertywasdamaged;
• inany othercase,it isthe lawof the place inwhichthe mostsignificantelementorelements
occurred.
The firsttwo testsseemtoprovide aworkable balance betweenthe interestsof the claimantandthe
defendantbyselectingthe lawof the place inwhichthe claimantsufferedthe harm, butproblems
remain.InHendersonvJaouen(2002) 2 AER 705 there was continuingdamage asthe conditionarising
fromoriginal injurydeteriorated.Similarly,inRoerigvValiantTrawlersLtd.(2002) 1 Ll Rep681, where
the accidentoccurredon board an Englishship,the mainconsequencesintermsof losswere feltbythe
deceased'sfamilyinthe Netherlands(theirhabitual residence),notEngland.
The third rule whichwill applyineconomictorts,breachof privacyetc.,requiresatestcomparable to
the properlaw.In Multinational GasandPetrochemical Co.vMultinational GasandPetrochemical
ServicesLtd.(1983) Ch 258 negligentmanagementdecisionswere basedonfinancialreportsprepared
inEngland.Because the decisionswere takenandthe losseswere sustainedoutsideEngland,Englishlaw
was notthe most significant.
Section12
In exceptional circumstances,the lex loci delicti rule isdisplacedinfavourof anotherlaw,if the "factors
relatingtothe parties"or "anyof the eventswhichconstitute the tort"show thatthisotherlaw will be
substantiallymore appropriate.SupposethatanEnglishemployersendsanemployee onabusiness-
relatedjourneytoArcadia.Duringthe course of thisjourney,the employeeisinjuredwhiledrivingacar
providedbythe employerforthispurpose.All the relevantconnectingfactorsfavorthe applicationof
Englishlawexceptthatthe injuryitself wassustainedelsewhere.
In Edmundsv Simmonds(2001) 1 WLR 1003 itwas heldmore appropriate todisplace the lex loci delicti
and to applyEnglishlawtothe consequencesof aroad trafficaccidentinSpaininvolvingtwoEnglish
friendswhohadtravelledabroadforashort holidayandwhere the majorityof the lossesandexpenses
were sufferedinEngland.

12. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
12
In Morin v BonhamsandBrooks Ltd. (2003) 2 AER (Comm) 36 a bad buywas made inMonaco as a result
of allegedlyfraudulentinformation"fed"tothe buyerinLondon.The case involvedrepresentations
made aboutthe qualitiesof aclassiccar auctionedbythe defendantsinMonacoandboughtby the
claimantwhohad receivedthe brochure whichmade the allegedmisrepresentationsinEngland.He had,
to a certainextent,reliedontheminEngland,byarrangingto travel toMonaco forthe auction,andhe
had sufferedlossinEnglandwherethe carwas foundnotto meetthe descriptioninthe brochure.The
car had,however,beensubjecttoauctioninMonaco where the bidsumwaspayable.The court held
that the claimant'sdecisiontobidandto commithimself tothe purchase thatwas "byfar the most
significant"act,andthat wasdone in Monaco. The judge offeredthe obiterdictathathad the claimant
made a telephone bidfromEngland,adifferentjudgmentwouldprobablyhave beenmade.
The Position at Common Law
The settledpositioninCommonlawinthe case of cross bordertorts,and as applicable todefamation
relatedclaimseventodayisthe “double actionabilityrule,”the foundationof whichrule waslaiddown
inthe case of Phillipsv.Eyre.
Sevenjudgesdecidedthe case of Phillipsv.Eyre.The brief factsof the case are:
The Governorof Jamaica,Edward Eyre declaredmarital rule in1865 inorderto put downan
insurrection.Atthistime Phillipswasarrestedathishouse,handcuffedandputona shipandtaken
away.Post the suppressionof the insurrectionanactindemnifyingthe Governorof anyacts committed
duringthe suppressionwaspassed.GovernorEyre thenreturnedtoEngland.Phillipshadreturnedto
Englandpriorto the Governor.PhillipsthenbroughtaclaimagainstEyre forassaultand false
imprisonmentinanEnglishCourt.Eyre pleadedthe actof the JamaicanParliamentindemnifyinghimfor
anythingdone duringthe suppressionperiodasa defence.The Courtof ExchequerChambersustained
the defence,onthe groundsthat“the civil liabilityarisingoutof a wrong derivesitsbirthfromthe lawof
the place,and itscharacter isdeterminedbythatlaw.”
The basic rule inPhillipsv.Eyre waslaiddownasfollows:
“As a general rule,inordertofounda suitin Englandfora wringallegedtohave beencommitted
abroad,two conditionsmustbe fulfilled.First,the wrongmustbe of such a character that itwouldhave
beenactionable if committedinEngland;…Secondly,the actmustnot have beenjustifiable bythe law
of the place where itwasdone.”

13. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
13
The “Double ActionabilityRule”wasthusestablishedasthe general rule relatingtocrossbordertorts.
The two limbs of the rule are:
(a) The act must be “actionable”asa tort in England;and
(b) The act mustbe “non-justifiable”bythe law of the place where itwas committed.
The firstlimboriginatedinacase decidedbythe PrivyCouncil twoyearspriortothe case of Phillipsv.
Eyre – The Halley case in1868.
In thiscase the PrivyCouncil dismissedaclaimon an employer’svicariousliabilityonthe groundsthat
such a tort was notrecognisedinEnglishLaw.
The secondlimbas initiallyformulatedinthe case of Phillipsv.Eyre wasoverruledinthe case of Boysv.
Chaplin. Thiswasdue to the interpretationof the term“non-justifiability”inthe case of Machado v.
Fontes.Inthe Machado case it washeldthatevenif the nature of liabilityof the actcommittedwasnot
civil inthe lex loci delicti,itwouldsatisfythe secondlimbasformulatedinthe Phillipsv.Eyre case. In
the Machado case evencriminal liabilityunderlex loci delicti washeldtosatisfythe “non-justifiability”
requirement.Thiswaslateroverruledinthe case of Boys v.Chaplin,where the term“non-justifiable”
was replacedwiththe term“actionable.”The Boysv.Chaplincase additionallyestablishedanexception
to the general rule of double actionability,bywayof makingthe awardingof reliefsaprocedural matter.
Thus the decisionof the Boysv.Chaplincase oustedthe law of the forum of place of tort andrestored
the lawof the forumas far as the awardingof damagesandotherreliefswasconcerned.Thisposition
was laterclarifiedtosome extentinthe case of Red SeaInsurance CoLtd v. Bouygueswhere the general
rule washeldto be double actionability,providingforanexceptioninappropriate cases,where the
plaintiff couldrelyoneitherlex fori orlex loci delicti individuallyforhisorherclaimto be actionable.
Position in India :-
The Indianpositiononchoice of lawrulesinthe case of cross bordertorts isin the earlystagesof
development.There seemtobe onlytwodecisionsonthe matter.Forthe mostpart, Indian

14. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
14
jurisprudence onthe matterfollowsthe earlyEnglishCourtdecisions,priortothe engraftingof
exceptionstothe “double actionability” rule bythe English Courts.
The firstdecisiononthe matteris of the Madras HighCourt.
The court was dealingwithaclaimof defamation.The factsof the case are: The thenRaja of Cochin
(whichwasat the time an independentIndianState),sentacommunicationtothe plaintiff
excommunicatinghimfromhiscaste.ThiscommunicationwasthensenttoBritishIndia.The Madras
HighCourt applyingthe “double actionability”rule dismissedthe claimstatingthatas the
communicationwasfroma superiortoa subordinate withno trace of malice,the defence of qualified
privilegewouldapplythusnotgivingrise tocivil liabilityunderthe lawsof the State of Cochin.
The secondcase isthat of The KotahTransport Ltd. V.The JhalawarBusService Ltd. In thiscase the
plaintiff filedfordamagesforinjurycauseddue torash andnegligentdrivingbythe defendant’sdriver.
The accidenttook place inJhalawar,andthe action wasbroughtin Kotah;boththese placeswere then
independentIndianStates.The courtfoundforthe plaintiff asthere wasnothinginthe law of the state
of Jhalawarthatjustifiedhisactions,andthe act wasa tort underthe lawsof the state of Kotah,and
thusthe requirementsof “doubleactionability”wassatisfied.
European harmonisation provisions
Under Article 3 of the proposed Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual
Obligations (22 July 2003), there would be a general presumption that the lex loci delicti will apply
subject to either:
an exception in Paragraph 2 for the application of the law to any common habitual residence
between the parties. The concept of habitual residence is the civil law equivalent of the common law
test of lex domicilii. This exception will be satisfactory so long as the laws are substantially the same
on the claimed relief.
an exception in Paragraph 3 for cases in which "the non-contractual obligation is manifestly more
closely connected with another country. . ." the so-called proximity criterion.
Until formal guidance is given on the circumstances in which either exception will operate, there will
either be considerable forum shopping to select the states with the most favourable interpretation, or
courts will resolve the uncertainty by applying the lex fori.

15. CHOICE OF LAW IN CROSS BORDER TORTS 2017
15
Article 6 specifies the lex fori for actions arising out of breach of privacy or defamation, a rule that
may increase the risk of forum shopping. Whether the plaintiff has any right of reply in a defamation
case will be determined under the law of the state where the broadcaster or publisher is established.
In cases where contract and tort issues overlap, Article 9 proposes that the same law govern both
sets of issues.
CONCLUSION
A tort relatedclaiminvolvesmultiplefactorssuchas the place of the tort,the nationalityanddomicileof
the parties,etc.Determiningjurisdictionof where the tortwascommittedisone of the major hurdles
facedincross bordertorts. Lawsof limitationsanddamagesalsomayvarycross countries.
In private international lawdisputes,the courtchooseswhichlaw isapplicableineachlegal issue
involvedinthe case.Inchoosing,the intensityandnature of the linkbetweenthe law andthe case plays
a huge role.In crossbordertorts, if (a) whenthe act is committedinone countrybutthe proceedings
are broughtforthin another,the lawof the forumwhere the claimisbrought,or the law of the forum
where the tortwas committed,mayapplyandincase (b) whenthe act iscommittedinone countrybut
itseffectisfeltinanothercountry,the law of the forumwhere the tortiousactwas committedorthe
lawof the place where itseffectswere feltmayapply.The courtchoosesonthe basisof rulesof private
international law.Theoriesvaryasto whetherthe lex fori orthe lex loci delicti mustbe chosen,orif the
court mustonlyapplythe lawmost connectedwiththe factsandcircumstancesina particular
claim/case.The aimmustalwaysbe to applythe theoryinsuch a way thatit providescertaintyandis
still flexible enoughtoaccommodate complexcases.