Use this window to add all the registrants you wish to register on behalf of. If you want to attend the course also, ensure you add yourself as one of the registrants. Make sure you press save after adding each new registrant.
Legal Executives Conference 2006Publication Date: 05-Sep-2006Author(s): Duncan Terris, Deborah Hollings, Bruce Patterson, Tim Jones, Christine Grice, Chris Kelly, Alistaire Hall, Sarah Simmers, Mark Lister |
NZ $60.00 | ||
Media LawPublication Date: 07-Apr-2003Author(s): Bill Wilson KC, John Burrows |
NZ $35.00 |
Author(s): Terence Arnold KC, Dr Andrew Butler, Jack Hodder, Janet McLean, Mary Scholtens KC
Published: 27 July, 2002
Pages: 106
Introduction
In this seminar we consider aspects of litigating against the Crown. In this introductory paper, three matters will be touched on: Before turning to these points, however, I should make a brief comment by way of background.
Under the common law in the early part of the 19th Century there were two particularly important limitations on the Crown’s liability: Even after legislation was enacted to facilitate the bringing of civil claims against the Crown, other “privileges” or immunities remained available to it. For example: On the other hand, the Crown faced unique liabilities, through the development of judicial review and of claims such as misfeasance in public office, for example (see Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 332 (CA) and Rawlinson v Rice
In general, the trend over the last 50-70 years has been to reduce the scope of the Crown’s substantive and procedural privileges or immunities, and to make the Crown subject to the imposition of liability, and to the application of statutes, in much the same way as any other entity. Three principles operate here:
[1998] 1 NZLR 454 (CA) for recent discussion of misfeasance in public office claims, the first in respect of the actions of the Police and the second in respect of the actions of a District Court Judge). As will be obvious, the first two principles may conflict with the third, and there may be disagreement as to the appropriate balance. This is reflected in the discussion concerning the approach to be taken to the application of statutes to the Crown – see Law Commission, A New Interpretation Act: To Avoid “Proxility and Tautology” (Report 17, 1990) Ch 4 “The Crown and Statutes”; Law Commission, To Bind Their Kings in Chains: An Advisory Report to the Ministry of Justice (SP 6, 2000); Ministry of Justice “Report Required by Section 28 of the Interpretation Act 1999” (June 2001).
It is against this background that the topics in this seminar must be considered.