Article on conflict of law
By a contract governed by New Zealand law, Otago limited, a New Zealand company with a branch in London, appointed Drinks Limited, an English company, to be the sole distributor in the United Kingdom of wine produced by Otago. After two years, Otago purported to terminate the contract on the ground that Drinks had not made sufficient efforts to market the wine and it appointed Fizz Limited, another English company, in place of Drinks.
Drinks wishes to sue Otago in England for breach of contract and conspiracy. Drinks also woshes to sue Fizz in England for lawful interface with contract and conspiracy. All the essential witnesses are in England. The extent to which the relevant New Zealand law differs from English law is unclear.
1) Advise Drinks on the steps to be taken to bring the case in the English courts.
2) Would your answer be different if Otago had no branch in England.
3) Support your answer using references to authorities.