|
Assumption of Responsibility and Pure Economic Loss in New Zealand
Brian Coote
|
Commentators in New Zealand have recently drawn attention to what they have seen as a tendency in the Court of Appeal to treat assumption of responsibility (Hedley Byrne), and the local version of the two-stage Anns analysis, as valid alternative approaches to the tort of negligent misstatement (and, no doubt, to liability in negligence for pure economic loss generally). It has, however, become clear that in situations not covered by authority (and depending on how individual cases are argued) assumption of responsibility is now to be subsumed under the two-stage approach, as bearing upon proximity. Argument from assumption of responsibility would have the acknowledged advantage of focusing what could otherwise be an inordinately wide-ranging enquiry. However, the expression “assumption of responsibility” has been given no single meaning. The author endeavours to identify and describe three variants, recognised in the cases, and each having discrete characteristics, in the hope that, as a result, it may be possible to focus enquiry that much the more.
|
Is the Partial Defence an Endangered Defence? Recent Proposals to Abolish Provocation
Julia Tolmie |
This article examines the recommendations of both the New Zealand Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice to abolish the partial defences to murder. It argues that, in spite of the more flexible sentencing regime for murder now contained in the Sentencing Act 2002, the partial defences still have significant advantages for defendants. The article concludes that there are defendants in homicide cases, in particular battered defendants, who have a strong moral claim to these advantages. Finally, having raised the possibility that the defence of provocation has a useful function to perform for battered defendants, the article argues that reform of this defence is both necessary and possible. |
2005 PART I
