But if that second state has choice-of-law rules requiring it to apply the forum law, a difference in outcome might arise depending on where the plaintiff invokes jurisdiction.
Hence, there is another system called double renvoi or the foreign-courts doctrine, which will also ensure parity of result as long as no other relevant law is using it.
Because the doctrine is considered difficult and its results are sometimes unpredictable, application of renvoi has generally been limited to: However, there are indications in some states that it might also apply to two issues in family law: the capacity to marry and the formal validity of marriage.
[1] Most states also exclude it in tort cases e.g. in the UK section 9(5) of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995.
In Australia, the doctrine of renvoi was revived by the decision of the High Court in Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2005] HCA 54 (29 September 2005).
In this decision the High Court considered the situation of Mrs Neilson, who had injured herself falling down the stairs in her apartment in Wuhan, China.
This decision has received strident criticism by Martin Davies,[2] and both the High Court and Full Court decisions have received very close attention by leading contemporary conflicts scholars including Andrew Lu and Lee Carroll,[3] Elizabeth Crawford,[4] and Mary Keyes.
However, since John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, statutes of limitations are considered substantive law.
Because of this, the applicability of limitation laws no longer go with the local forum; rather, they too follow the lex loci delicti.