Search

The legality of ritual slaughter rests upon both law and merits. On the one hand, the international freedom of religion requires that communities can obtain meat of a suitable standard, and on the other, current scientific literature indicates that any distinct risks to animal welfare are manageable. Despite this, ritual slaughter remains controversial, particularly Jewish kosher slaughter (Shechita), for which electrical pre-stunning before throat-cutting - arguably the sine qua non of welfare risk management - is incompatible. Through a mixture of theological, legal, and scientific argument, this paper examines the level of protection Shechita receives as a manifestation of belief, with particular reference to developments in Australia and New Zealand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fair Trading Amendment Act 2021 introduced a New Zealand prohibition on "unconscionable conduct" in trade. Previously, the law on unconscionable conduct was found in the equitable doctrine of unconscionable bargain. This article describes how New Zealand law has moved away from equitable unconscionability with this new prohibition. This article critically analyses some of the legal, social and economic justifications for introducing the prohibition, finding that some of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's justifications are not persuasive. The s 7 prohibition is based strongly on an equivalent section in the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). It is argued that long-standing doctrinal issues with Australia's prohibition provided a strong basis for New Zealand to pursue a different standard. Finally, this article explores the "unfair commercial practices" doctrines in the United States and European Union through the lens of anticonsumer practices in digital marketplaces. The conclusion is that the unfair commercial practices doctrine captures a wider range of anti-consumer conduct than does unconscionable conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The principal income tax statutes of both New Zealand and Australia provide special concessions for taxpayers who earn exceptional copyright income in a year of assessment. As authors (creators) of copyright-protected artistic works, visual artists are potential beneficiaries of these preferences but, because they typically produce singular artworks that are not licensed for reproduction, they cannot directly benefit from copyright or, as a consequence, tax concessions granted to copyright assignors or licensors. In New Zealand, a taxpayer who receives peak copyright payments can opt to average those receipts over more than one assessment year. An Australian taxpayer can spread their more broadly defined assessable professional income and, if they operate a professional arts business, may enjoy an exception to the non-commercial loss rules, and so may claim net losses in the year they are incurred. The substantive provisions of neither the Income Tax Act 2007 nor the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) expressly incorporates provisions of copyright legislation but both taxing statutes explicitly import copyright terminology and, implicitly, concepts and doctrine. Examination of differences between fact and law is a significant field of legal research. In taxation studies, John Prebble's identification of "ectopia" presents the best-known analysis. Prebble characterises income tax law as "ectopic" (out of place), inasmuch as it is dislocated from the facts to which it relates. Copyright law is likewise dislocated from typical artistic practice. When copyright principles are incorporated into income tax legislation, the relevant provisions may be doubly estranged from the facts to which they relate. This article, which has an Australasian jurisdictional focus but also draws on Quebecois tax legislation, investigates that possibility and considers, in particular, the consequences for equity in income taxation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The search for simplicity in legislative drafting affects all legislatures. It is also central to the work of the New Zealand Law Commission and of governments in other comparable jurisdictions. Rather than exploring a range of statutes in various jurisdictions, this article focuses on income tax. It does so for two reasons. The first is that income tax has been crucial to the funding of government in common law jurisdictions and to achieving a legislative balance between simplicity and other criteria of an acceptable tax system. The second is that we can draw on three recent projects to rewrite income tax legislation - in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The law of defamation provides protection to people's reputations. An examination of the sports-related defamation cases in Australia and New Zealand indicates that such claims have been based on written comments, spoken words and also visual images. These cases can be internal comments made by those involved in a sport, as illustrated by the recent comments made by the coach of the Melbourne Storm, Craig Bellamy. However, as the recently decided case of Coates v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd indicates, most of the cases have involved comments made by people in the media rather than within the sport. An examination of defamation and sport, therefore, requires an examination of the sometimes delicate balance between the media's desire to report and comment on controversial sporting matters, and the desire of those involved in sport wishing to protect their reputations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]