DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of the Judicature Act 1908

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of the Judicature Act 1908 E31(126) NovemberNovember 2012, 2010, Wellington, Wellington, New New Zealand Zealand | | R REEppORTORT 126 119 REVIEW OF THE JUDICATURE ACT 1908 TOWARDS A NEW COURTS ACT November 2012, Wellington, New Zealand | REPORT 126 REVIEW OF THE JUDICATURE ACT 1908 TOWARDS A NEW COURTS ACT The Law Commission is an independent, publicly funded, central advisory body established by statute to undertake the systematic review, reform and development of the law of New Zealand. Its purpose is to help achieve law that is just, principled, and accessible, and that reflects the heritage and aspirations of the peoples of New Zealand. The Commissioners are: Honourable Sir Grant Hammond KNZM – President Dr Geoff McLay SJD; Mich Honourable Dr Wayne Mapp Ph D; Cantab The General Manager of the Law Commission is Roland Daysh The office of the Law Commission is at Level 19, 171 Featherston Street, Wellington Postal address: PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140, New Zealand Document Exchange Number: sp 23534 Telephone: (04) 473-3453, Facsimile: (04) 471-0959 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.lawcom.govt.nz National Library of New Zealand Cataloguing-in-Publication Data New Zealand. Law Commission. Review of the Judicature Act 1908 : towards a new Courts Act. (Law Commission report ; no. 126) ISBN 978-1-877569-39-5 (pbk.)—ISBN 978-1-877569-38-8 (internet) 1. New Zealand—Judicature Act 1908. 2. New Zealand— Judicature Amendment Act 1972. 3. Courts—New Zealand. 4. Judicial review of administrative acts—New Zealand. I. Title. II. Series: New Zealand. Law Commission. Report ; no. 126. 342.930664—dc 23 ISSN 0113-2334 (Print) ISSN 1177-6196 (Online) This paper may be cited as NZLC R126 This report is also available on the Internet at the Law Commission’s website: www.lawcom.govt.nz ii Law Commission Report The Hon Judith Collins Minister Responsible for the Law Commission Parliament Buildings WELLINGTON 26 November 2012 Dear Minister REVIEW OF THE JUDICATURE ACT 1908: TOWARDS A NEW COURTS ACT (NZLC R 126) I am pleased to submit to you the above report under section 16 of the Law Commission Act 1985. Yours sincerely Grant Hammond President Review of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a new Courts Act iii Foreword In late 2010, the Law Commission received a reference from the Minister of Justice under which it was asked to consider the creation of a single Courts Act consolidating the legislation governing the District Courts, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court; and the amendment, modernisation or repeal of certain provisions of the Judicature Act 1908. The reference explicitly directed that the Commission not turn its attention to “major matters of policy”, such as the structure and character of the existing trial courts and appellate courts in New Zealand. The enterprise was to be directed to establishing the architecture and parameters of the jurisdiction of each of these courts in one statute, in a way which is principled, modern and clear, and easily accessible to all New Zealanders. A reference of this character is well within the statutory jurisdiction of the Law Commission. Section 5 of the Law Commission Act 1985 imposes a duty on the Commission to take and keep under review the law of New Zealand with a view to its systematic development and reform, including, in particular, the desirability of simplifying the expression and content of the law as far as that is practicable. That includes the elimination of anomalies, the reduction of the number of separate enactments, and making the law “as accessible as is practicable”. It is appropriate to emphasise the underlying reasons for the objectives of this reference. These are grounded in the rule of law. That requires all persons and authorities within a state, whether public or private, to be bound by, and entitled to, the benefit of laws publicly made and publicly administered by the courts. The very objective of the rule of law – an overarching principle of fundamental constitutional importance in our system – is that how courts are set up, what their jurisdiction is, and the essential operational characteristics must be clear, accessible and intelligible. The thinking behind the reference is that this cannot presently be said, with a sufficient degree of confidence, as to the architecture of the New Zealand courts. This is because the legislation relating to the New Zealand trial and appellate courts is presently to be found in a melange of statutes: the Judicature Act 1908, the District Courts Act 1947; and the Supreme Court Act 2003. These statutes have evolved at widely differing times and have drafting styles that reflect their particular eras. They have become complex and difficult to follow, with many amendments. The interface between them is routinely awkward. The reference as advanced to the Commission was not therefore one of “pure” consolidation under which those responsible for the reference could properly certify iv Law Commission Report that the law has not been changed at all (as is the case with a pure consolidation). It invited the bringing together of the trial and appellate courts statutes into one, with such matters as needed to be addressed, to enable that objective to be met. But the reference did not amount to an invitation to review the courts generally; still less to be something like a Royal Commission to enquire into the appropriateness of the present and future scope and operation of the New Zealand courts. References of this kind always attract a certain amount of difficulty as to exactly where the line is to be drawn. Some submitters on the reference were clearly of the view that there should be a healthy measure of “real” reform. Some of the proposals made to us clearly went beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of the reference. However, in fairness to submitters we have endeavoured to include at least the tenor of their views, for such future consideration as they might attract. The reference also attracted two particular kinds of difficulty. The initial view of the Commission, which we were strongly attracted to, was that it would best be attended to by the drafting of a new Courts Act, with commentary. At the inception of the reference the late George Tanner QC, formerly Chief Parliamentary Counsel and Compiler of Statutes for New Zealand, was a Commissioner. He was extremely well placed – and eager – to undertake this exercise. He was the ideal person to undertake the task, enjoying, as he did, the full confidence of the public sector and Ministers; and of the Bar and Bench for his sterling work over many years in New Zealand. Regrettably, George died after a serious illness just as the project gained momentum. We were considering how that very considerable gap in our resource might be addressed when the Responsible Minister indicated in the letter of understanding issued to the Commission under the provisions of the Crown Entities Act that the Commission is not, for the moment at least, to undertake drafting exercises. We were, however, concerned to see whether, as a matter of practicality, the sort of drafting exercise we had in mind was feasible. We are most grateful to the Acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Bill Moore, for making available to us the services of a professional drafter during the run-up to the last General Election, when there is less pressure on the Parliamentary Counsel Office. We were able to satisfy ourselves – the results are appended to Issues Paper 29 – that the exercise we had in mind is distinctly achievable. For instance, that drafter set out what the appointment provisions would look like in a consolidated statute. A second complication then ensued. In the submissions we received on Issues Paper 29 it can be fairly said there was widespread support for the idea of a unitary court statute. However, what for the moment I will call “the Higher Courts” objected to a unitary statute on what, through their Heads of Bench, they characterised as constitutional grounds. On closer examination, that objection needs refinement. The basic concern is that the High Court undoubtedly occupies a constitutional position, particularly in relation to judicial review, which is the vehicle by which unlawful governmental action is constrained. As we point out in the Report, however, nothing in what we recommend explicitly or impliedly reduces the present constitutional role and Review of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a new Courts Act v Foreword jurisdiction of the High Court. All would be exactly as it was before the advent of such a statute. The objection is therefore on a second ground, of a visceral character: that by being emplaced in a unitary statute along with the District Courts, the significant constitutional role of the High Court (and remembering that Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges are also High Court judges in New Zealand) would somehow be diminished. Arguments about “how things will look” are always difficult, and not amenable to scientific or precise answers. However, we doubt that the issue is one which will or should attract much attention from the citizens of New Zealand, particularly if it is accepted (as it is on all sides) that the constitutional position of the High Court will not in fact be altered. To our mind the important factor to have regard to is the utility of a unitary statute which inspired the advancement of the reference in the first place. It can be said that it would be possible to have a binary system (say, a Senior Courts Act for the High Court and above, and an amended District Courts Act). That is not our preference, although we note the possibility.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Appellate Jurisdiction in the Scottish Legal System
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Final Appellate Jurisdiction in the Scottish Legal System Citation for published version: Walker, N 2010, Final Appellate Jurisdiction in the Scottish Legal System. Scottish Government. <http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/299388/0093334.pdf> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publisher Rights Statement: ©Walker, N. (2010). Final Appellate Jurisdiction in the Scottish Legal System. Scottish Government. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 07. Oct. 2021 FINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM Crown Copyright 2010 ISBN: 978-0-7559-8213-4 Further copies are available from Eli do Rego The Scottish Government Legal System Division 2nd Floor West St Andrew’s House Edinburgh EH1 3DG 0131 244 3839 [email protected] An electronic copy of the full report including
    [Show full text]
  • Wai L Rev 2017-1 Internals.Indd
    Waikato Law Review TAUMAURI VOLUME 25, 2017 A Commentary on the Supreme Court Decision of Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General 1 Karen Feint The Native Land Court at Cambridge, Māori Land Alienation and the Private Sector 26 RP Boast More than a Mere Shadow? The Colonial Agenda of Recent Treaty Settlements 41 Mick Strack and David Goodwin Section 339 of the Property Law Act 2007: A Tragedy of the Commonly Owned? 59 Thomas Gibbons Trimming the Fringe: Should New Zealand Limit the Cost of Borrowing in Consumer Credit Contracts? 79 Sascha Mueller Takiri ko te Ata Symposium Matiu Dickson: The Measure of the Man 100 Ani Mikaere Mā Wai Rā te Marae e Taurima? The Importance of Leadership in Tauranga Moana 107 Charlie Rahiri Book Review: International Indigenous Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 111 Seanna Howard Book Review: He Reo Wāhine: Māori Women’s Voices from the Nineteenth Century 115 Linda Te Aho Editor in Chief Linda Te Aho Editorial Assistance Mary-Rose Russell, Carey Church Senior Student Editor Philip McHugh Student Editors Nicole Morrall, Aref Shams, Cassidy McLean-House EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Chief Justice, The Honourable Dame Sian Elias (honorary member), Chief Justice of New Zealand. Professor John Borrows, JD (Toronto), PhD (Osgoode Hall), LL.D (Dalhousie), FRSC, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Law, Nexen Chair in Indigenous Leadership, University of Victoria, (Canada). Associate Professor T Brettel Dawson, Department of Law, Carleton University, Academic Director, National Judicial Institute (Canada). Gerald Bailey, QSO, LLB (Cant), Hon D (Waikato), Consultant Evans Bailey, Lawyers, former Chancellor of University of Waikato and member of the Council of Legal Education.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (C
    Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23) 1 SCHEDULE 5 – Minor and Consequential Amendments Document Generated: 2021-08-19 Status: Point in time view as at 01/10/1992. Changes to legislation: Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, Part II is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 19 August 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) SCHEDULES SCHEDULE 5 MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS PART II SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS (1) ACTS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 The text of Sch. 5 Pt. II(1) is in the form in which it was originally enacted: it was not wholly reproduced in Statutes in Force and, except as specified, does not reflect any amendments or repeals which may have been made prior to 1.2.1991 . F1 Textual Amendments F1 Entry relating to Crown Debts Act 1801 (c. 90) repealed by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c. 27, SIF 45), Sch. 13 Pt. I para. 3, Sch. 14 The M1Writ of Subpoena Act 1805 Marginal Citations M1 1805 c. 92. In sections 3 and 4 references to a writ of subpoena requiring the appearance of a person to give evidence shall be construed as including references to any summons or order issued by the Crown Court in Northern Ireland for the appearance of a person before it. The Tumultuous Risings (Ireland) Act 1831 M2 Marginal Citations M2 1831 c.44 2 Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Cap. 91 Supreme Court of Judicature
    BELIZE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT CHAPTER 91 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 3 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 1980 - 1990. This edition contains a consolidation of the following laws- Page ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 3 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT 18 Amendments in force as at 31st December, 2000. BELIZE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT CHAPTER 91 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 3 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 1980 - 1990. This edition contains a consolidation of the following laws- Page ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 3 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT 18 Amendments in force as at 31st December, 2000. Supreme Court of Judicature [CAP. 91 3 CHAPTER 91 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II Officers of the Court, etc. Seal 3. Seal. The Registry and Officers of the Court 4. The registry and the Registrar. 5. Registrar to have power of judge in chambers. 6. Deputy registrar and assistant registrar. 7. Salaries of Registrar, deputy registrar and assistant registrar. 8. Qualification of Registrar. 9. Registrar to administer oaths. THE SUBSTANTIVE LAWS OF BELIZE REVISED EDITION 2000 Printed by the Government Printer, No. 1 Power Lane, Belmopan, by the authority of []the Government of Belize.
    [Show full text]
  • 0-9 Bracegirld NZ Courtsnov 06
    The Courts and Parliament: Further cases and other developments in New Zealand Allan Bracegirdle ∗∗∗ Introduction A previous article examined a number of cases in New Zealand bearing on the relationship between the courts and Parliament in the new MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) parliamentary environment, with particular reference to cases in the area of defamation raising issues of parliamentary privilege. 1 The major case in the latter area has since come to a conclusion in the Privy Council, New Zealand’s highest court until its replacement by a domestically based Supreme Court in 2004. There have also been a number of other cases and other developments of interest to the relationship between the courts and Parliament over the course of the last Parliament (2002–5). General Cases and Related Developments Concerning Parliament Unsurprising Decisions The courts have continued to dispose of some cases raising issues of a constitutional kind. For example, in Milroy v Attorney-General ,2 an application for judicial review of officials’ advice and Ministerial decisions relating to a Treaty of Waitangi claim settlement, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision to decline to get involved. It said it would not interfere in the formulation of government policy preparatory to the introduction of legislation. It reiterated the concern it had expressed in another recent case, involving a challenge to a Government decision to disband the combat section of the Royal New Zealand Air Force, that it will often be constitutionally inappropriate for the courts to review policy or political decisions of such a character as to make them legally non-justiciable.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies in English Civil Procedure (Continued)
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review And American Law Register FOUNDED 1852 Published Monthly. Except July. August and September. by the Univeathy of Pennsyl- vania Law School, at 236 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pa., and 34th and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia. Pa. VOLUMs 63 JANUARY, i91,. NuMmuR 3 STUDIES IN ENGLISH CIVIL PROCEDURE.* II. THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY. I. In no province does the familiar constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers break down more completely than in the special field of the law of civil procedure occupied by what we know as the rules of practice. The substantive law of the State may lay down with the greatest precision the rights of an individual, and how far their infringement will be repaired by legal remedy, but to the person wronged the question of how and when he can obtain his remedy is equally important. Suitors are not satisfied with syllogisms; they are more interested in the re- sults. It is therefore necessary to provide a safe means by which the litigant can, with proper expedition and directness, pass through contention and attain satisfaction. Upon what depart- ment of the State should that duty be placed? Is the function of prescribing rules of procedure executive, judicial or legislative? In so far as it pertains to the carrying out and practical enforce- ment of substantive law, it is an executive duty; in so far as it aids judges to arrive at the true issues in controversy, it is judi- cial; and in so far as it has a binding effect upon the conduct of *Part One of this article, "The Atmosphere," appeared in the December issue, 63 UNIW.Rsrry oF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicature Act
    LAWS OF KENYA JUDICATURE ACT CHAPTER 8 Revised Edition 2012 [2010] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org [Rev. 2012] CAP. 8 Judicature CHAPTER 8 JUDICATURE ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Mode of exercise of jurisdiction. 4. High Court is court of admiralty. 5. Contempt of court. 6. Protection of judges and officers. 7. Number of Judges of Appeal and the High Court. 8. Precedence of judges and of judges of appeal. 9. Retiring age. 10. Rules. 11. Spent. SCHEDULE 3 [Issue 1] [Rev. 2012] CAP. 8 Judicature CHAPTER 8 JUDICATURE ACT [Date of assent: 4th July, 1967.] [Date of commencement: 1st August, 1967.] An Act of Parliament to make provision concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and subordinate courts, and to make additional provision concerning the High Court, the Court of Appeal and subordinate courts and the judges and officers of courts [Act No. 16 of 1967, Act No. 8 of 1968, Act No. 4 of 1975, Act No. 6 of 1976, Act No. 14 of 1977, Act No. 6 of 1979, L.N. 162/1980, Act No. 12 of 1981, Act No. 19 of 1982, Act No. 10 of 1983, Act No. 19 of 1984, L.N. 65/1984, L.N. 275/1990, Act No. 10 of 1997, Act No. 7 of 2007, Act No. 10A of 2012.] 1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Judicature Act. 2. Interpretation In this Act, “judge” means the Chief Justice or a judge appointed under Article 166(5) of the Constitution or a judge of appeal appointed under Article 166(4) of the Constitution and includes acting appointments.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch 1 the Parliament of New Zealand
    Chapter 1 The Parliament of New Zealand The Parliament of New Zealand met for the first time on 24 May 1854 in Auckland. At that time the Parliament was officially styled “The General Assembly of New Zealand”. It consisted of three bodies: the Governor, a Legislative Council and a House of Representatives. Only the House of Representatives, the elected component, has retained its unbroken membership of the Parliament under its original title, though it is now a much larger body, with 120 members, as compared with 37 in 1854. (The 51st Parliament—2014–2017—had 121 members as a result of an electoral “overhang” of one member.) The Parliament of New Zealand today consists of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand and the House of Representatives.1 The Sovereign was not originally mentioned as part of the General Assembly. Legislation was therefore passed in 1953, on the occasion of the Queen’s first visit to New Zealand, to remove any doubt about the Sovereign’s power to give the Royal assent to bills.2 The Sovereign’s powers as part of Parliament are exercised by Her Majesty’s representative, the Governor-General, who assumed this title in 1917. The Legislative Council, which was an appointive rather than elective body, was abolished on 1 January 1951,3 leaving Parliament a single-chamber or unicameral legislature ever since. THE Sovereign and the Governor-General The Sovereign has performed a number of acts as a constituent part of Parliament. These have included: giving the Royal assent to bills that have passed through the House; summoning and proroguing Parliament; delivering the Speech from the Throne at the opening of a session of Parliament; and sending messages to the House of Representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Wales and the Jurisdiction Question
    This is a repository copy of How to do things with jurisdictions: Wales and the jurisdiction question. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/127304/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Percival, R. (2017) How to do things with jurisdictions: Wales and the jurisdiction question. Public Law, 2017 (2). pp. 249-269. ISSN 0033-3565 This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Public Law following peer review. The definitive published version Percival, R., How to do things with jurisdictions: Wales and the jurisdiction question, Public Law, 2017 (2), 249-269 is available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service . Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ How to Do Things with Jurisdictions: Wales and the Jurisdiction Question Richard Percival* Senior Research Fellow, Cardiff University Introduction There is a recurring debate amongst lawyers and policy makers about the desirability of Wales becoming a separate, fourth, UK jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978
    Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 CHAPTER 23 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NORTHERN IRELAND Section 1. The Supreme Court. 2. The High Court. 3. The Court of Appeal. 4. The Crown Court. 5. Divisions of the High Court. 6. Judges of one court empowered to assist another. 7. Further assistance for transaction of judicial business. 8. Additional provisions as to persons rendering judicial assistance. 9. Qualifications of judges of High Court and Court of Appeal. 10. Judicial precedence. 11. Exercise of functions of Lord Chief Justice. 12. Appointment of judges. 13. Tenure of office, oath, etc. 14. Vacation of office. 15. Power of judges to act in cases relating to rates and taxes. PART II THE HIGH COURT General jurisdiction 16. General jurisdiction of the High Court and its judges. 17. Assignment of business to judges. Supervisory and declaratory jurisdiction 18. Application for judicial review. 19. Stay and interim relief. 20. Damages. 21. Power to remit matter or reverse or vary decision. 22. Extension of supervisory powers of High Court. 23. Declaratory judgments. 24. Injunction concerning public office. 25. Power of High Court to vary sentence on certiorari. A ii c. 23 Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 Jurisdiction in relation to persons under disability Section 26. Wards of court. 27. Maintenance of wards of court. 28. Jurisdiction with respect to property and affairs of patients. 29. Co-ordination of exercise of jurisdiction in relation to persons under disability. Admiralty jurisdiction 30. High Court to have exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty. Miscellaneous powers of High Court 31.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicature Act 1908
    Reprint as at 1 July 2015 Judicature Act 1908 Public Act 1908 No 89 Date of assent 4 August 1908 Commencement see section 1(2) Contents Page Title 9 1 Short Title, etc 9 2 Interpretation 10 Part 1 The High Court Constitution of the court 3 Supreme Court reconstituted as High Court 11 4 The Judges of the High Court 11 4A Chief High Court Judge 13 4B Functions of Chief High Court Judge 14 4C Judges of High Court act on full-time basis but may be authorised 14 to act part-time 5 Senior Judge to act as Chief Justice in certain circumstances 14 [Repealed] 6 Judges to be barristers or solicitors 15 7 Commissions of Judges to continue during good behaviour 15 [Repealed] Note Changes authorised by subpart 2 of Part 2 of the Legislation Act 2012 have been made in this official reprint. Note 4 at the end of this reprint provides a list of the amendments incorporated. This Act is administered by the Ministry of Justice. 1 Reprinted as at Judicature Act 1908 1 July 2015 8 Judges may be removed or suspended on address of both Houses 15 of Assembly to the Queen [Repealed] 9 Governor may suspend Judge when Parliament not sitting 15 [Repealed] 9A Salaries and allowances of Judges 15 10 Salaries of Judges not to be diminished [Repealed] 17 11 Temporary Judges 17 11A Former Judges 17 11B Certificate by Chief Justice and Chief High Court Judge 18 12 Superannuation allowance of Judges [Repealed] 18 13 Age of retirement 18 14 Rights on retirement before attaining retiring age 18 15 How superannuation allowances of the existing Judges to be 19 computed [Repealed]
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper on Interest on Debt and Damages
    SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Discussion Paper No 127 Discussion Paper on Interest on Debt and Damages January 2005 This Discussion Paper is published for comment and criticism and does not represent the final views of the Scottish Law Commission EDINBURGH: The Stationery Office £xx.xx This publication (excluding the Scottish Law Commission logo) may be re-used free of charge in any format or medium for research for non-commercial purposes, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being re-used accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. For any other use of this material please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.hmso.gov.uk/copyright/licences/core/core_licence.htm or by writing to: OQPS Licensing Division, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ; Fax: 01603 723000; Email: [email protected]. ii The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 19651 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Eassie, Chairman Professor Gerard Maher, QC Professor Kenneth G C Reid Professor Joseph M Thomson Mr Colin J Tyre, QC. The Chief Executive of the Commission is Miss Jane L McLeod. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. The Commission would be grateful if comments on this Discussion Paper were submitted by 29 April 2005. Comments may be made on all or any of the matters raised in the paper.
    [Show full text]