Briefly comment on how a court in a member state of the European Union would approach the choice of law in tort issues in this case.

In December 2019, there occurred an eruption of a volcano on White Island, New Zealand (“the incident”). In the incident, a number of persons, including residents of New South Wales who were part of an organised tour group visiting the island, were killed or injured.
With particular reference to the topic “Choice of law in tort”, explain the conflict of laws issues which might be relevant in the event that the legal personal representatives of the persons killed in the incident and the persons injured in the incident wish to commence common law proceedings to recover damages in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the tour operator. What would your answer be if the rule in Phillips v. Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 continued to apply in New South Wales? What would your answer be if one of the persons injured in the incident who wishes to commence common law proceedings in New South Wales was a New South Wales-based employee of the tour operator? In your answer, also briefly comment on how a court in a member state of the European Union would approach the choice of law in tort issues in this case.

Further reading relevant to the compulsory assignment question (class handouts posted on Canvas):
“Choice of law in tort in New Zealand”
“Choice of law in tort. Developments in the United Kingdom before the Rome II Regulation”
Edmunds v. Simmonds [2001] 1 WLR 1003