A Common Market Problem Becomes More Common: the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010

<p>As part of a wider process of economic integration and the move towards a single integrated economic market, Australia and New Zealand entered into bi-lateral treaty in 2008 in order to resolve existing issues with the reciprocal enforcement of civil judgment which had arisen between the two countries. Labelled the “Christchurch Agreement” this treaty was incorporated by both countries into their domestic law in 2010 and now governs the allocation of disputes between Australia and New Zealand, where the parties are located within the common market of Australia and New Zealand and inter-state enforcement of civil judgments more generally. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) and (NZ) (“TTPA”), will arguably provide significant benefits by reducing barriers to trade and improving the economic prosperity of both countries. However it is argued that, similar to other common market reciprocal enforcement schemes (such as the Brussels Model in the European Union), Australia and New Zealand failed to consider the impact of the outer world problem. The outer world problem is a recurring theme in common market arrangements, and results from a failure to provide generic proportionate jurisdictional test for cases involving foreign defendants sued in a common market state. The result is excessive jurisdictional rules within a particular state can potentially result in proceedings being retained where there is a strong argument the dispute is more closely connected with another forum. The resulting judgment (should judgment in the plaintiff’s favour be granted), can then be quickly enforced throughout the common market (specifically New Zealand) to the disadvantage of the defendant. The outer world problem is clearly present under the TTPA scheme, beginning in Australia and cumulating in enforcement of the judgment in New Zealand. It remains present even in the case of international commercial contract disputes. This is unfair and discriminatory towards foreign defendants, and arguably justifies reform, or at least discussion and justification of this approach.</p>

A Common Market Problem Becomes More Common: the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010

<p>As part of a wider process of economic integration and the move towards a single integrated economic market, Australia and New Zealand entered into bi-lateral treaty in 2008 in order to resolve existing issues with the reciprocal enforcement of civil judgment which had arisen between the two countries. Labelled the “Christchurch Agreement” this treaty was incorporated by both countries into their domestic law in 2010 and now governs the allocation of disputes between Australia and New Zealand, where the parties are located within the common market of Australia and New Zealand and inter-state enforcement of civil judgments more generally. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) and (NZ) (“TTPA”), will arguably provide significant benefits by reducing barriers to trade and improving the economic prosperity of both countries. However it is argued that, similar to other common market reciprocal enforcement schemes (such as the Brussels Model in the European Union), Australia and New Zealand failed to consider the impact of the outer world problem. The outer world problem is a recurring theme in common market arrangements, and results from a failure to provide generic proportionate jurisdictional test for cases involving foreign defendants sued in a common market state. The result is excessive jurisdictional rules within a particular state can potentially result in proceedings being retained where there is a strong argument the dispute is more closely connected with another forum. The resulting judgment (should judgment in the plaintiff’s favour be granted), can then be quickly enforced throughout the common market (specifically New Zealand) to the disadvantage of the defendant. The outer world problem is clearly present under the TTPA scheme, beginning in Australia and cumulating in enforcement of the judgment in New Zealand. It remains present even in the case of international commercial contract disputes. This is unfair and discriminatory towards foreign defendants, and arguably justifies reform, or at least discussion and justification of this approach.</p>

Civil Judgment Enforcement Service Quality: The Case Of Tien Giang Province, Vietnam

The purpose of this paper is to study some key factors regarding the quality of civil judgment enforcement service in the case of Tien Giang province, Vietnam by structural equation modeling using partial least squares (PLS-SEM). This study has involved qualitative and quantitative research. Qualitative research was carried out focusing group discussions with at least 10 leaders in the judicial field, and quantitative research was conducted through direct interviews with 400 respondents including survey civil judgment enforcement officials, judgment execution prosecutors, lawyers, representatives of organizations and civil judgment enforced people in Tien Giang province, Vietnam. The results show that the socioeconomic conditions, legal system, quality of applied decision, human factors, educational level and awareness of law compliance affect the quality of civil judgment enforcement service. However, this study has certain limitations: (i) due to limited resources in conducting research, the sample size consisted of 400 respondents, (ii) the sampling technique included direct interview methods from respondents.

Improving the Mechanism to Examine Judgment Debtor’s Ability to Satisfy Civil Judgments in Vietnam from International Experience

This article provides an overview of current law and current state of examining conditions of civil judgment enforcement in Vietnam and points out that the main shortcomings are the lack of a court’s supporting mechanism and lack of strict sanctions imposed on judgment debtors and other agencies, organizations and individuals who fail to provide information on the judgment debtor’s assets. The article explores the mechanism for examining of conditions for civil judgment enforcement in several countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada and draws some experience for improving the law on examining conditions of civil judgment enforcement in Vietnam. Keywords Civil judgment enforcement, examining judgment debtor’s ability to satisfy civil judgment enforcement References [1] Council of Europe. 2003, “Recommendation Rec(2003)17 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Enforcement.” September 9, https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=65531&Site=COE. [2] Henderson, Keith, Angana Shah, Sandra Elena & Violaine Autheman. 2004. “Regional Best Practices: Enforcement of Court Judgments. Lessons Learned from Latin America.” IFES Rule of Law White Paper Series, International Foundation for Electoral Systems, Washington, DC. [3] Hoàng Thị Thu Trang, Hoàn thiện quy định pháp luật về xác minh điều kiện THADS, Tham luận của Cục THADS tỉnh Nghệ An, http://thads.moj.gov.vn/nghean/noidung/tintuc/lists/nghiencuutraodoi/view_detail.aspx?itemid=13.[4] European Commission for the efficiency of justice, CEPEJ Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing Council of Europe's recommendation on enforcement, https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/textes/Guidelines_en.pdf[5] Wendy A. Kennett, Enforcement of Judgments in Europe, Oxford University Press, 2000.[6] German Civil Procedure Code, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html.[7] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.[8] California Civil Procedure Code, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=ccp[9] Procedure for enforcing a judgment: England and Wales, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_procedures_for_enforcing_a_judgment-52-ew-en.do?member=1[10] British Columbia Law Institute, Report on the Uniform Civil Enforcement of Money Judgment Acts, 2005.[11] Học viện Tư pháp, Giáo trình Nghiệp vụ thi hành án dân sự (Phần Kỹ năng), Tập 1, NXB. Tư pháp, 2017.