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 ...


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, ...


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

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. ...


3

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.


2

An amicus curiae, in my experience, is appointed to consider the law, not the facts. Just because the defendant does not wish (or cannot afford) to contest this case does not mean the law is clearly on the plaintiff's side; and if it is not, you might get the result where the plaintiff's counsel sees a difficulty, but feels his responsibility to his client ...


2

Were there any laws broken? That will be a matter for the judge and the jury. However, in the total context, there are certainly grounds for charges to be laid: 209 Kidnapping Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who unlawfully takes away or detains a person without his or her consent or with his or her consent ...


2

Probably No. To the extent that the airline is enforcing immigrations laws, it is likely doing so at the direction of a government official or government regulations, or sometimes as an actual agent of the government. Essentially, in the first instance, the airline would have an illegality defense to a claim for breach of contract. An airline can't be ...


2

The question is not if the airline is wrong, the question is if they are negligent If the airline has a reasonable belief that the trip is unlawful then they are within their legal obligations to stop Bob boarding. In arriving at their belief, providing they acted within the law and their own policies and made reasonable enquires within the time ...


2

Part of your confusion may come from the fact that there were two separate actions. On March 21, the government issued an Order in Council, Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms) Order 2019 (LI 2019/55), with the following short text: For the purposes of the Arms Act 1983, the following firearms are declared to be military style semi-automatic ...


2

I can think of several relevant situations. Protective Orders While it is not strictly part of the "case file", it isn't uncommon in commercial lawsuits between competitors (e.g. trademark disputes) for some documents that are disclosed in the case to a plaintiff to be disclosed on an "attorney's eyes only" basis pursuant to a protective order entered by ...


1

Yes Assume "Rob" is a government and the evidence he wants to use has defence or security implications - Bob can be denied access to these. These are particularly common in immigration matters where adverse security findings on Bob would not be provided to him. I'm sure you can imagine scenarios in civil litigation against a government by a defence ...


1

Generally speaking, a living trust and any other self-settled trust is not effective to bar a creditor's claims and all transfers to a revocable trust are, in the technical sense of the word, "fraudulent transfers". Also, if the trustee is the grantor of the trust, or the trust is revocable, a court can order a debtor to exercise powers as a trustee or as ...


1

Based on your being a resident of Italy and you meeting the requirements of the respective Article 20s. You are exempt from USA tax on income earned in the USA irrespective of if you are taxed on it in Italy or not. Domestic Italian tax law will determine if you have to pay tax in Italy. You are exempt from NZ tax on income earned in NZ provided you are ...


1

This is quite unusual. Normally, if a client wants to do something contrary to a lawyer's advice, the lawyer will send you a "CYA" (cover your ass) letter, that tells you that they recommended course of action X and you decided instead to take course of action Y. I have never had a client execute an indemnity agreement in more than two decades as a lawyer ...


1

I have trouble parsing the agreement since it's written in legalese You should have posted the clause(s) that are unclear to you. Also, it is often a good idea to consult a legal dictionary so as (1) to ascertain the meaning of certain terms, and (2) to gain exposure to legalese. they assure me that it's pretty standard. That means nothing (and this is ...


1

Where country A thinks that its laws apply is totally up to the laws and courts of country A. It may assert that its laws apply in countries B, C, or the whole world and outer space. But whether the laws can actually be honoured/enforced in each of those places depends on them individually, and also on A's forces. This is politics, not law. It is totally ...


1

Suppose that later evidence is found that seems to establish that the apparent suicide was in fact a murder. In such a case a witness to the finding of the body could be summo0ned to testify whenever the case is eventually tried, which could be many years later. This is all highly improbable, as the idea of an apparent suicide being actually a murder is ...


1

If A or its employed had, or represented to B that they had, proper authority to sell their contract with you, then B accepted in go0od faith. In that case B performed work for you, and if it did so to a reasonable professional standard, should be entitled to reasonable compensation, up to whatever your contract with A provided. If BG felol short, that would ...


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