JURISDICTION OF N.Z. COURTS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22372, 8 April 1938, Page 14

JURISDICTION OF N.Z. COURTS

ISSUE RAISED IN DIVORCE SUIT

RESPONDENT LIVING IN BAGDAD

(PBESS ASSOCIATION TELEGBAM.) AUCKLAND, April 7. Wide questions of the jurisdiction of New Zealand Courts over New Zealanders resident in foreign territory were raised during the hearing of an undefended divorce suit. The case was one in which Ellen Doris Manson, for whom Mr Finlay appeared, sought a divorce from Norman Manson, on the ground of his failure to comply with a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights. The case had already been partly heard, and adjourned for the production of proof that the respondent was domiciled in New Zealand at the time of the issue of the proceedings. Mr Finlay produced an affidavit from the respondent, stating that he was at present Professor of Ophthalmology at Bagdad University, and was under engagement there until November, 1940. He intended to return to New Zealand at the expiry of his term, and eventually to settle in this country. Mr Justice Fair said he would be very happy if he could now pronounce a decree in this case, which had had a long and rather troublesome career; but another matter had cropped up—that was the jurisdiction of New Zealand Courts, administering the enactments of a subordinate legislature, to issue commands to persons outside the territorial limits of New Zealand. There was no doubt that the Court could make an order effective in New Zealand, even though the defendant was outside New Zealand; but to issue a command to a person who was outside New Zealand was a different matter. He was now considering that question. Mr Finlay said he had not seen anything to suggest that the law, as laid down in Halsbury, was not applicable to New Zealand. His Honour said that was in England, and the Imperial Parliament ■could legislate with regard to anything in any part of the world. There was, however, a well-known case in which it was held that New Zealand Courts could not punish a New Zealander for bigamy committed outside New Zealand. , Mr Finlay said he idealised that criminal jurisdiction must extend to the place where the crime was committed; but he could not conceive that the New Zealand Parliament was subordinate in the sense that it could not legislate to control the actions of its own nationals anywhere. His Honour said there were no New Zealand nationals; but only British subjects. The New Zealand legislature drew its power straight from an act of the Imperial Parliament. Mr Finlay said that even before the Statute of Westminster New Zealand was given what might be called Imperial rights, entirely independent of the British Parliament, and almost unrestricted. His Honour said they were x-ostricted in criminal matters, quite clearly, and it had been held that they were restricted even in the matter of the enforcement of an Arbitration award outside the three-mile limit. His Honour said he gladly accepted Mr Finlay’s offer to submit written argument on the subject.