scholarly journals The functions and failings of the Abortion Supervisory Committee: A Critique of the New Zealand Supreme Court Decision in Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Emma Jane Smith
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Majority Judgment ◽  
The Law ◽  
Minority View

<p>In 2012 the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled on Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee. The case was brought by way of application for judicial review, with Right to Life New Zealand Inc arguing that the Supervisory Committee had made an error of law in interpreting its functions under the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977. A majority of the Court held that the Supervisory Committee does not have the power to review decisions made by certifying consultants in individual cases. However, both the text and the purpose of the Act support the minority view, that the Supervisory Committee must seek information about individual cases in order to fulfil its functions under the Act. It appears that the majority judgment was motivated by policy concerns due to an arguable change in Parliamentary intent since 1977. The majority should have acknowledged the policy values that guided its decision or accorded with the minority view rather than straining the statutory wording. Either of those actions would have better prompted Parliament to reform the law to reflect modern circumstances.</p>

scholarly journals The functions and failings of the Abortion Supervisory Committee: A Critique of the New Zealand Supreme Court Decision in Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Emma Jane Smith
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Majority Judgment ◽  
The Law ◽  
Minority View

<p>In 2012 the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled on Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee. The case was brought by way of application for judicial review, with Right to Life New Zealand Inc arguing that the Supervisory Committee had made an error of law in interpreting its functions under the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977. A majority of the Court held that the Supervisory Committee does not have the power to review decisions made by certifying consultants in individual cases. However, both the text and the purpose of the Act support the minority view, that the Supervisory Committee must seek information about individual cases in order to fulfil its functions under the Act. It appears that the majority judgment was motivated by policy concerns due to an arguable change in Parliamentary intent since 1977. The majority should have acknowledged the policy values that guided its decision or accorded with the minority view rather than straining the statutory wording. Either of those actions would have better prompted Parliament to reform the law to reflect modern circumstances.</p>

scholarly journals The Contractual Interpretation of Tipping J

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 227
Author(s):  
Matthew Barber
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
The Future ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Way

In the Supreme Court decision of Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd, Tipping J put forward an approach to contact interpretation that, while indebted to that of Lord Hoffmann, was expressed differently and promoted the use of evidence of prior negotiations. Despite not gaining the support of any of the other sitting judges, this approach was swiftly taken up in the lower courts and, until recently at least, seems to have been accepted as representing New Zealand law. This article attempts a comprehensive examination of Tipping J’s approach. It concludes that, while coherent in principle, the detail of the approach is flawed in a number of ways, especially the way in which evidence of subsequent conduct is assumed to work. The future of Tipping J’s approach is considered.

scholarly journals Third Party Consent Searches Following the Search and Surveillance Act

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 447
Author(s):  
Sam McMullan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Living Arrangements ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court

Many New Zealanders live in shared living arrangements. The result of this is that reasonable expectations of privacy are becoming more limited. State officials may conduct a lawful search where a person consents to such a search if that person has the authority to consent. Where people live in shared living arrangements, several people may have authority to consent to a search of the same property. This article explores the extent of a third party's power to consent to property searches where more than one person has authority to consent to a search under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. It argues that the question of reasonable expectations of privacy should not be assessed by reference to property rights. It also considers the concept of "apparent" authority which has arisen in New Zealand from the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Bradley as well as the concept of a present and objecting occupant which has arisen in the United States in the Supreme Court decision of Georgia v Randolph.

scholarly journals KILKA UWAG DOTYCZĄCYCH POWOŁYWANIA CZŁONKÓW ZARZĄDU SPÓŁEK KAPITAŁOWYCH

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Gawrysiak-Zabłocka
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Polish Code

SOME REMARKS ON THE APPOINTMENT OF COMPANY DIRECTORSSummaryThe article discusses selected issues concerning the appointment of company directors. In the first part the focus is on the practical application of Art. 18 of the Polish Code of Commercial Companies (Kodeks spółek handlowych, KSH), which provides that only natural persons having full legal capacity and not convicted for crimes or offences mentioned in that provision can be members of a company’s board of managers. In the light of the inconsistent rulings handed down by the Polish Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) it is not clear whether the registering court, which has information available from the National Criminal Register (Krajowy Rejestr Skazanych), may refuse to enter a resolution which has been passed at a shareholders’ meeting but is in breach of the law. In my opinion, the first premise in the ruling handed down by seven Supreme Court judges on 18 September 2013 (case III CZP 13/13) is flawed. Not only does it contradict the Supreme Court decision of 24 July 2013 (case III CNP 1/13), but also its consequences can hardly be reconciled with the consequences of the second premise. In the second part of the study I use the provision on the composition of a brokerage board to show that specific regulations may prove ineffective if they only give cursory attention to an issue, with no reference to what is stipulated by the KSH.

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis terhadap Kasus Gugatan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum atas Ketidakabsahan Peralihan Hak Milik Benda Bergerak (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1081/K/PDT/2018)

Kosmik Hukum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Fathalya Laksana
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Analytical Research ◽  
The Law

The legal requirements are regulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata). If the valid conditions of the promise are not fulfilled, then the law that results is that the agreement can be canceled or null and void. In the Court's practice contained in the Supreme Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018, there was a sale and purchase agreement between the Plaintiff's husband and the Defendant, the sale and purchase agreement was made by the Plaintiff's partner without the consent of the Plaintiff as his legal wife. Supreme Court Decision No. 1081K / PDT / 2018 stated that the sale and purchase agreement was invalid and null and void. Apart from that, in its decision, the Defendant's UN Supreme Court had committed an illegal act. The research method used is a normative juridical approach using secondary data obtained from literature studies, namely statutory regulations, legal theories, and the opinions of leading legal scholars. This research uses descriptive analytical research specifications that describe the regulations that are in accordance with legal theories that oversee the implementation practices of the problems under study. The data analysis method used is qualitative normative method. Based on the research results, it can be denied that the sale and purchase agreement in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018 is not legally valid. The agreement does not fulfill the validity requirements of the agreement in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, namely halal skills and causes because it violates Article 36 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Law No. 1 of 1974 resulting in the sale and purchase agreement to be null and void.Keywords: Buying and Selling, Acts against the Law, Agreement, Marriage, Collective Property

Hayes & Williams' Family Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Gilmore ◽  
Lisa Glennon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Child Support ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

Hayes and Williams’ Family Law, now in its sixth edition, provides critical and case-focused discussion of the key legislation and debates affecting adults and children. The volume takes a critical approach to the subject and includes ‘talking points’ and focused ‘discussion questions’ throughout each chapter which highlight areas of debate or controversy. The introductory chapter within this edition provides a discussion of the law’s understanding of ‘family’ and the extent to which this has changed over time, a detailed overview of the meaning of private and family life within Article 8 of the ECHR, and a discussion of the Family Justice Review and subsequent developments. Part 1 of this edition, supplemented by the ‘Latest Developments’ section, outlines the most up-to-date statistics on the incidence of marriage, civil partnerships and divorce, discusses recent case law on the validity of marriage such as Hayatleh v Mofdy [2017] EWCA Civ 70 and K v K (Nullity: Bigamous Marriage) [2016] EWHC 3380 (Fam), and highlights the recent Supreme Court decision (In the Matter of an Application by Denise Brewster for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2017] 1 WLR 519) on the pension rights of unmarried cohabitants. It also considers the litigation concerning the prohibition of opposite-sex civil partnership registration from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWCA Civ 81 to the important decision of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) (Application) v Secretary of State for International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary) [2018] UKSC 32. This edition also provides an in-depth discussion of the recent Supreme Court decision in Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41 regarding the grounds for divorce and includes discussion of Thakkar v Thakkar [2016] EWHC 2488 (Fam) on the divorce procedure. Further, this edition also considers the flurry of cases in the area of financial provision on divorce such as Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 722; TAB v FC (Short Marriage: Needs: Stockpiling) [2016] EWHC 3285; FF v KF [2017] EWHC 1903 (Fam); BD v FD (Financial Remedies: Needs) [2016] EWHC 594 (Fam); Juffali v Juffali [2016] EWHC 1684 (Fam); AAZ v BBZ [2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam); Scatliffe v Scatliffe [2016] UKPC 36; WM v HM [2017] EWFC 25; Hart v Hart [2017] EWCA Civ 1306; Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408; Work v Gray [2017] EWCA Civ 270, and Birch v Birch [2017] UKSC 53. It also considers the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38 concerning post-divorce maintenance obligations between former partners, and the Privy Council decision in Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17 relating to the joint name purchase by a cohabiting couple of investment property.Part 2 focuses on child law, examining the law on parenthood and parental responsibility, including the parental child support obligation. This edition includes discussion of new case law on provision of child maintenance by way of global financial orders (AB v CD (Jurisdiction: Global Maintenance Orders)[2017] EWHC 3164), new case law and legislative/policy developments on section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (parental orders transferring legal parenthood in surrogacy arrangements), and new cases on removing and restricting parental responsibility (Re A and B (Children: Restrictions on Parental Responsibility: Radicalisation and Extremism) [2016] EWFC 40 and Re B and C (Change of Names: Parental Responsibility: Evidence) [2017] EWHC 3250 (Fam)). Orders regulating the exercise of parental responsibility are also examined, and this edition updates the discussion with an account of the new Practice Direction 12J (on contact and domestic abuse), and controversial case law addressing the tension between the paramountcy of the child’s welfare and the protected interests of a parent in the context of a transgender father’s application for contact with his children (Re M (Children) [2017] EWCA Civ 2164). Part 2 also examines the issue of international child abduction, including in this edition the Supreme Court’s latest decision, on the issue of repudiatory retention (Re C (Children) [2018] UKSC 8). In the public law, this edition discusses the Supreme Court’s clarification of the nature and scope of local authority accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (Williams v London Borough of Hackney [2018] UKSC 37). In the law of adoption, several new cases involving children who have been relinquished by parents for adoption are examined (Re JL & AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption),[2016] EWHC 440 (Fam) and see also Re M and N (Twins: Relinquished Babies: Parentage) [2017] EWFC 31, Re TJ (Relinquished Baby: Sibling Contact) [2017] EWFC 6, and Re RA (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Final Hearing)) [2016] EWFC 47).

Leading Decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel and Extracts of the Judgment

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 754-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Conditional Release ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Of Israel

Ganimat v. The State of Israel (1995) 49(iv) P.D. 589.The appellant was indicted in the Jerusalem Magistrate Court for two incidents of car theft. His detention was requested on the grounds that he posed a “danger to society”. The Magistrate Court agreed to his arrest, holding that a custom has been established whereby custody may be justified in crimes which have become “a nationwide scourge”, including car theft. The District Court rejected the appeal. The appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court (decision of Dorner J. and Barak J.; Cheshin J. dissenting) and his conditional release was ordered. However, it was decided to hold Special Proceedings in order to discuss some of the important issues raised by the case. The principal constitutional question raised by the case was whether the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty influences the interpretation of the existing law, in the present case, the law of arrest as regulated by the Law of Criminal Procedure.

scholarly journals Legal Protection For Brand Right Owner Famous For His Brand Immediate

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-229
Author(s):  
Chris Anggi Natalia Berutu ◽  
Sheila Elfira ◽  
Monica Sheren Tambuwun ◽  
Ericson Sebastian Sitohang
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Existing Data

Brand equality can cause harm to brand owners. Therefore, the legal protection of trademarks is very important. In this study, the authors will analyze the Supreme Court Decision No. 7K/pdt.sus-HKI/2016 whose purpose is that the consequences of the law of imitation of famous brands can be known and know the legal protection for owners of well-known brands if their brands are imitated. This research is descriptive and classified as normative legal research and uses existing data. Based on research, the famous brand ST. REGIS belonging to the plaintiff entered the list of registrants in Indonesia first, therefore the defendant's mark REGIS@the Peak at Sudirman has been registered with unfavorable conditions. The defendant's mark is essentially the same as the plaintiff's mark for similar and dissimilar services, as a result, the defendant's mark must be removed from the general register of marks. According to the law, Sheraton Internasional as the owner of the famous ST.REGIS brand won against REGIS@ the Peak at Sudirman.

scholarly journals KONSEP PEMBUKTIAN SEDERHANA DALAM PERKARA KEPAILITAN

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 331
Author(s):  
Nelson Kapoyos
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Simple Proof ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Research Problem ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Supreme Court

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini mempermasalahkan pembuktian sederhana dalam proses kepailitan terkait kewajiban pemberitahuan adanya peralihan piutang (cessie) kepada debitur. Putusan Nomor 02/PDT.SUS.PAILIT/2014/PN.Niaga.Mks telah mengabulkan permohonan kreditur cessionaries yang dikuatkan oleh Putusan Nomor 19 K/PDT.SUSPAILIT/2015, namun pada upaya hukum peninjauan kembali majelis hakim justru mengabulkan permohonan peninjauan kembali dengan alasan pembuktian sederhana terhadap cessie belum diberitahukan kepada debitur secara resmi melalui juru sita pengadilan. Rumusan masalah penelitian ini ialah bagaimana konsep pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan terhadap kewajiban pemberitahuan pengalihan piutang (cessie) pada pertimbangan majelis hakim peninjauan kembali Nomor 125 PK/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2015. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif. Kesimpulan penelitian ini adalah konsep pembuktian sederhana di dalam pembuktian kepailitan tidak ada kewajiban pemberitahuan secara resmi melalui juru sita pengadilan karena Pasal 613 BW tidak mengaturnya, pemberitahuan hanya diajukan secara tertulis dan bisa kapanpun diberitahukan kepada debitur. Kata kunci: kepailitan, pembuktian sederhana, cessie.ABSTRACTThis analysis intends to question the simple proof in bankruptcy proceedings related to the transition of receivable notification obligation (cessie) to the debtors. The Commercial Court Decision Number 02/PDT.SUS.PAILIT/2014/PN.Niaga.Mks has granted the petitions of creditor&rsquo;s cessionary which was strengthened by the Supreme Court Decision Number 19 K/PDT.SUSPAILIT/2015, but on the judicial review attempt, the Supreme Court has granted the petition for the judicial review on the grounds that a simple proof of cessie has not been officially disclosed to the debtor through a court bailiff. The formulation of this research problem is how the concept of simple proof in bankruptcy proceeding to the obligation of notification of transfer of receivables (cessie) in the consideration of Court Decision Number 125 PK/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2015. The research method of this analysis is normative legal research. This analysis resolves thatin the simple proof concept of the bankruptcy proceedings, there is no obligation of official notice through the court bailiff because it is not set on Article 613 of Indonesia Civil Code Law, so the notification is only submitted in writing and may at any time be notified to the debtor. Keywords: bankruptcy, simple proof, cessie.

scholarly journals REDUKSI KEWENANGAN ATRIBUSI PEMERINTAH DAERAH DALAM PENGATURAN PEMILIHAN KEPALA DESA

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 113
Author(s):  
Proborini Hastuti
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Literature Research ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
Legal Force

ABSTRAKPemerintah Daerah Kabupaten Demak membuat peraturan turunan dari ketentuan pencalonan pemilihan kepala desa di Pasal 33 Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Desa ke dalam Pasal 24 ayat (1) Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Demak Nomor 5 Tahun 2015 tentang Kepala Desa. Peraturan daerah tersebut berhenti berlaku setelah Mahkamah Agung melakukan hak uji materi dan menghasilkan Putusan Nomor 30 P/ HUM/2016 yang menyatakan peraturan daerah tersebut bertentangan dengan peraturan yang lebih tinggi sehingga tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat. Berdasarkan hal tersebut perlu dianalisis apakah Putusan Nomor 30 P/HUM/2016 memiliki dampak hukum terhadap kewenangan atribusi pemerintah daerah Kabupaten Demak berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Desa. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan menggunakan penelitian kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Putusan Mahkamah Agung tersebut memberikan implikasi terhadap adanya reduksi kewenangan atribusi yang dimiliki oleh pemerintah daerah dalam hal pemilihan kepala desa sebagai bagian dari penyelenggara pemerintahan di Indonesia.Kata kunci: kewenangan atribusi, pemilihan kepala desa, hak uji materi. ABSTRACT Demak Regency Administrative Government made a regulation derived from Village Chief Election Regulation in Article 33 of Law Number 6 of 2014 regarding Village and transformed into Article 24 paragraph (1) of Demak Regency Regulation Number 5 of 2015 regarding Village Chief. The regional regulation ceased to take effect after the Supreme Court conducted a judicial review and ruled Decision Number 30 P/ HUM/2016 stating that the regional regulation is in conflict with higher level regulations and therefore has no binding legal force. Based on this, it is necessary to analyze whether the Supreme Court Decision Number 30 P/HUM/2016 has a legal effect on the attribution authority of the Administrative Government of Demak Regency pursuant to Law Number 6 of 2014 regarding Village. This analysis is a normative legal research conducted using literature research. The result of the analysis shows that the Supreme Court Decision has implication to the reduction of attribution authority of the regional government in village chief election as part of managing governance in Indonesia.Keywords: attribution authority, village chief election, right to judicial review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document