I suggest everyone concerned read this document
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWALawRw/2003/15.pdf
...and I quote
The title rule and the local actions rule were both reviewed by the Supreme Court of Victoria in Dagi v Broken Hill Ph Co Ltd (No 2).'"he plaintiffs brought an action in trespass, nuisance and negligence in relation to the defendant's operation of a mine near the Ok Tedi River in Papua New Guinea. The defendants opposed the plaintiff's claim primarily on the basis that the Supreme Court of Victoria lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's claim. Byrne J examined the Mozambique rule in detail and held that -
the distinction between local and transitory actions. in so far as they concern foreign land, does underlie the principle for which the Mozrrmbiqiie case stands as authority.. . . At common law the court will apply the principle underlying the substantive distinction between claims which are local and those which are transitory to determine justiciability. They show that at common law, the court will refuse to entertain a claim where it essentially concerns rights, whether possessory or proprietary, to or over foreign land, for these rights arise under the law of the place where the land is situate and can be litigated only in the courts of that place. The claim must not merely concern those rights: it must essentially concern them. This is because the rights must be the foundation or gravamen of the claim. "
It appears that in W.A the Mozambique rule is still absolutely followed.
