32

There is a firm difference between giving advice on "what the best decision is likely to be" and "what decision to make". The former is what lawyers must do, which comes from: Conduct and Client Care Rules: Whatever legal services your lawyer is providing, he or she must— discuss with you your objectives and how they should best be achieved: ...


18

That's the entire point of a summary proceeding. You're allegedly found committing an offence, that isn't worth the court's time to hear but nevertheless requires some penalty. The only way to "unambiguously deny liability" is by requesting a hearing and denying liability in the notice of this. The court doesn't care what you say to everybody else, it ...


15

A not guilty plea is not part of the case of a defendant or a defense attorney. A "case" refers to evidence and argument made at trial (or conceivably in a pre-trial hearing). The rule in question specifically contemplates a defense attorney entering a not guilty plea for a client who has confessed to the lawyer that the client is guilty of the ...


14

If I unambiguously deny liability but do not ask for a hearing can the informant refer the mater to the district court for unpaid fines without a hearing having taken place? Yes, but not before they serve you with a reminder notice. Once they have done this, they may "provide particulars" of it to the Ministry of Justice (subsection 3), from which point, ...


12

The import of slaves into the United States was banned in 1808, although slavery itself and the buying and selling of slaves remained legal on a Federal level until 1865. There were, of course, many many violations of the law against importing new slaves.


8

Dale M is correct. Lawyers get calls all day long from people who want free advice and have no intention of entering into a paid representation. That is what your letter sounds like. I write separately just to add that you may have better results if you make explicit that you are aware of their rates and prepared to pay them. Even then, though, it may be ...


6

We don't know the circumstances. It could be that his business didn't owe any taxes, or that he did clever things to avoid having to pay taxes (legal tax avoidance), or that he did illegal things to avoid having to pay taxes (illegal tax evasion). In the UK, it is possible to run a company completely legal without having to pay taxes: You must make no ...


6

It is possible that you could be required to testify in a coroner's inquest, or in a criminal trial (if it were later determined that a crime was committed despite first impressions to the contrary). You could also conceivably be called to testify in a civil trial concerning, for example, insurance payment eligibility. But, it is also quite likely that none ...


6

Lawyers run businesses. Like most businesspeople they prioritise their clients on their profitability. On the face of it, your letter probably has you classified as a tire kicker.


6

You will note that the quoted definition says that person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body What it doesn't say, but almost certainty intends, is that "person" also includes a natural person, that is an ordinary human being with a single body. What is happening here (I think) is that the law is specifying ...


5

Private prosecution is allowed in New Zealand, so one possibility would be to conduct the prosecution yourself. You could either do that as a case of destruction of property, or under the Animal Welfare Act. It is not guaranteed that your charging document will be accepted (for example, if your document lacks the required content). An alternative would be to ...


5

I've been called back to the police station a week after the event, to make a statement. Constable said (paraphrasing) the circumstances seem pretty cut and dried at this point so the coroner is unlikely to require any court proceedings. However that could change if more information came up. Coroner's Court in New Zealand may take up to 12 months to be ...


4

Yes it affects them. Judges are pursuing their vocation as a career and there are career paths within the judicial system just as there are in every other career. Screw up too many times and your career ends at your present level. Judges are also professionals and most take professional pride in doing their jobs well. Having a decision overturned is ...


4

I take that to mean that section 14 alone should not be construed to give a department the power to sue under sub section (1), nor the ability to be sued under sub section (2). Rather, if some other law, or some other section of that law confers such a power or ability, section 14 indicates how the power should be used, that is, gives the proper procedure. ...


4

The applicable law is the New Zealand Anti-Money Laundering law. The regulations describing exactly what is covered don't mention Bitcoin cleaning, but the "wire transfer" and "currency exchange" bits probably cover such a thing. I certainly wouldn't like to be the test case. There was also this case in Europe.


4

S88 Closing roads and public places: ...totally or partially prohibit or restrict public access, with or without vehicles, to any road or public place... S91(1)(a) Power to give directions: direct any person to stop any activity that may cause or substantially contribute to an emergency That is what "this Act otherwise provides"; S6 that you ...


3

From the picture, I believe those to be domestic geese rather than ducks. This is not needless pedantry; it is necessary pedantry because the Wildlife Act 1953 classifies geese as "Wildlife not protected" but ducks (relevant species) as "game". If they are game you need to abide by the relevant Fish and Game Council regulations (from a quick look it is legal ...


3

Somewhat late response - I found this while asking a question of my own - and surprisingly I think I have the knowledge to answer in the context of New Zealand. I can make some observations which may clear things up. Unfortunately you might not like my answer. If the company did not make a profit over the period it traded it does not need to pay income tax....


3

According to Wikipedia Vicarious Liability is a type of liability under the doctrine of "Respondeat Superior" (an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment). Now, in the first case that you have mentioned, the employee was on duty and was supposed to be under the supervision of the supervisor. ...


3

New Zealand has ratified the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. You must submit a request in writing and the Refugee Status Branch processes the claim. While yopur claim is being processed, ...


3

You believe wrong - that is not what without prejudice means and it won't do what you want. Without prejudice only has meaning within the context of an effort to negotiate the resolution of a dispute. So far, so good, you have a dispute and are trying to negotiate a resolution: this letter can be marked without prejudice. What it means is that this letter ...


3

In the U.S., the answer to this question would be no, it doesn't affect the judge at all, other than as a matter of personal pride. Judges cannot be removed from office or penalized in any way professionally for having their judgment reversed on appeal. Indeed, about 99% of the time, if a decision of a judge is overturned on appeal, on remand, the case is ...


3

To what standard does the evidence need to be convincing so that the judge is satisfied that a jury could “reasonably convict” the defendant? The High Court expanded on the answer to this question in Mitchell, the decision you cited, at [32]: [In R v Kim [2010] NZCA 106] the Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of “insufficient to justify a trial” in the ...


3

Greendrake's answer says that a country can declare any jurisdiction it likes. This is true, but in practice it is the convention that a country should claim jurisdiction only over its territory and its citizens. The point about "citizens" is normally not pushed, as when you go to a foreign country you are normally subject to its laws rather than those of ...


3

Barring any specific statute the relevant law is the tort of negligence. To succeed Alice must prove Bob: had a duty to Alice, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to Alice, and Alice was, in fact, harmed or ...


3

This is not as uncommon as you might think, but will probably depend highly on the locality. Neighboring countries may have different standards or weapons laws. On the German / Polish border, certain products may be bought freely in Poland, but may not be imported into Germany. In the area of weapons, polish laws differ greatly in the area of knifes I ...


3

Rob is responsible. No Bull! Around the world, the law of wandering cattle depends on the details. New Zealand is no different. This case is covered by s 26 of the Impounding Act of 1955, Damages for Trespass. As you said, S 26(1)(d) says Bob is entitled to damages whenever his "land (whether fenced or unfenced) is situated in a city." This is ...


3

No Only the ratio decidendi of a case sets binding precedent. By definition, that has to be in the decision of the court’s majority because that’s what decided the case. If a minority decision disagrees with the majority on ratio, then the majority is the binding precedent. If the point is obiter, then it’s merely persuasive, not binding, irrespective of ...


3

Was/is it permissible for judges in the US to talk ex-parte like that? No. Ex parte interactions of that sort are not allowed. See, for instance, Disciplinary Counsel v. Bachman, 2020-Ohio-732 (Dec. 18, 2020) and Maze v. Judicial Conduct Commission, 2019-SC-0691-RR (Dec. 17, 2020). An example of less recent decision but with a reporter citation number is ...


3

In the U.S., the common way to address this would be called a servitude among academics and legal scholars, although it would typically be titled either an "easement", or more likely a "covenant" (which is the customary name at common law for a promise that runs with the land). It would typically be reduced to writing and executed by both ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible