Double Actionability

Double Actionability in Maritime Law

Note: There is more information on maritime/admiralty law here.

The following is a definition of Double Actionability, produced by Tetley, in the context of admiralty law: The former English common law rule of conflict of laws in tort, whereby a suit could only be maintained in England for an alleged wrong committed abroad if the wrong would have been actionable had it been committed in England and if it was also civilly actionable in the place where it was committed. See Chaplin v. Boys [1971] A.C. 356 (H.L.). The double actionability rule has been largely repealed in England by Part III of thePrivate International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 42. In Canada, the very similar “actionable and not justifiable” common law rule of tort conflicts, adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in McLean v. Pettigrew [1945] S.C.R. 62, was abandoned by the Supreme Court, in favour of the rule of lex loci delicti (subject to a flexibility exception) in Tolofson v. Jensen and Gagnon v. Lucas [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022. See Tetley, Int’l C. of L., 1994 at pp. 430-435, 437-438; Tetley, “New Developments in Private International Law: Tolofson v. Jensen and Gagnon v. Lucas” (1996) 42 Am. J. Comp. L. 647.