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. Her apartment had been provided by her husband's employer, Overseas Projects Corporation, and Mrs Neilson sued her husband's employer in negligence in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in June 1997, six years after the accident had occurred. Under Australian choice of law rules, the law of the place of the incident or lex loci delicti governs tort situations (following the decision of that court in 2002: Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang). This meant that the law relevant to the resolution of the dispute was that of the People's Republic of China. However under Chinese law, the claim would have been statute barred for exceeding the limitations period (Article 136 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China). However Mrs Neilson raised Article 146 of the General Principles in her defence, arguing that the provision of that article should apply making the relevant law for the dispute Australian law. Article 146 provided that: "With regard to compensation for damages resulting from an infringement of rights, the law of the place in which the infringement occurred shall be applied. If both parties are nationals of the same country or domiciled in the same country, the law of their own country or of their place of domicile may also be applied" As a consequence, the Supreme Court trial judge concluded that Art 146 "gives me a right to choose to apply the law of Australia because both parties are nationals of Australia." This decision was reversed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. On appeal to the High Court, Neilson succeeded. In six separate judgments, the majority of the High Court found in favour of Neilson on the basis that the Australian choice of law rule referred to the whole of the law of the place of the wrong. Secondly, that this meant that the applicable law was referred back to Australia and the Australian limitations statute applied, meaning that Neilson's claim was no longer statute barred. This decision has received strident criticism by Martin Davies, 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, Elizabeth