CORRESPONDENCE
| Published date | 01 March 1961 |
| Date | 01 March 1961 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1961.tb02178.x |
CO
R.ItESPOND
ENC
E
Tim
EDITOR,
The Modern Law Review.
Sir,
In the May
1959
issue of the
Modern Law Reziew,'
Mr.
Purmston clis-
cusses the proof of foreign law in English courts, with particular reference to
the decision of Danckwerts
J.
in
Re Sebba,l
in which the particular point was
proof of Canadian Provincial Statutes. When hearing an application for
confirmation of
a
provisional maintenance order made in New Zealand, which
came before me in the Children's Court
at
Canberra recently,
I
had occasion
to examine the extent
of
my ability
to
refer to statutes and other sources of
law from the parts of the British Commonwealth which are parties
to
the
reciprocal arrangements for making and enforcement of maintenance orders.
In the result,
I
think that both
Mr.
Furmston's note and the
dicta
of
Danck-
werts
J.
on this point in
Re Sebba
may be to some extent misconceived,
so
far
as the proof of British Commonwealth law is concerned.
So
far as
I
know,
the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act,
1907,
is still in force in the
U.K.,
and
section
1
amply authorises an English court to receive in evidence the
statutes of
"
British possessions
"
bearirrg the impiint
of
an appropriate
Government Printer, which is in effect all that Danckwerts
J.
did; Colonial
and Dominion legislation has similarly been considered, without expert evidence
but possibly with at least the acquiescence of
the
parties in
Re
Wheat
and
in
Harris
v.
Hard.'
Agreement of the parties, however, could not explain
a
similar reference to Transvaal law in
Haig
v.
H~ig,~
where the respondent
was
not represented. In none
of
these cases
was
any reference made
to
the
Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act, though
it
would appear
that
in each
of
them that Act was sufficient authority for the reference
to
"
Colonial'' statutes
\\hi&
took place.
In the jurisdiction in which
I
was sitting, an even more convenient statutory
provision operated, one which could with advantage be adopted in the
U.K.
and in all other parts of the Commonwealth where nu similar provision now
applies.
It
is section
19
of the
N.S.W.
Evidence Act,
1898-1964,
which runs
ns
follows:
"
19.-(1)
Evidence of any statute, code,
or
other written law of any part
of the British dominions other than New South Wales,
or
of any foreign
State, may be given by the production of
a
printed copy in
a
volume of such
statute, code,
or
law, either-
(a)
purporting
to
be published by the authority of the Government of
such
part of the said dominions,
or
of such State,
or
(b)
proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be commonly admitted as
evidence in the Courts and Judicial tribunals of such part of the said
dominions,
or
of such State.
"
(2)
Evidence of the unwritten
or
common law of any such part of the
said dominions,
or
any such State, may be given by the production
of
a
book
of reports of cases adjudged in the Courts thereof, purporting
or
proved to
the satisfaction of the Court to be authorised reports.'' G.
SAWER.
22
M.L.R.
317.
[1959]
Ch.
166.
[1932]
2
K.B.
716.
119493
2
All
E.R.
318.
119371
9
AU
E.R.
639.
To continue reading
Request your trial