Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand - outro
Cancer Society of New Zealand v.
The Court ordered the Ministry to reconsider whether the area of the casino could allow smoking under the law.
For problem gambling foundation of new zealand v attorney general, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors.
These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
The second respondent, Auckland Regional Public Health Service the Health Serviceand Skycity did not wish to be heard on the application and abide the decision of the Court.
Section 13A sets out the requirements for smoking in casinos.
No person may smoke in any part of a casino that is not an open area.
See also s 4 a.
Open area, in relation to any premises, means a part of the premises that is not an internal area.
For this purpose officers are appointed7 who are responsible for investigating any complaints made to the Director-General8 and to commence prosecutions for offences against Part 1 of the Act.
Skycity provided him with a report about the Diamond Lounge from Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner.
Mr Lokhande subsequently inspected the premises and, after taking measurements and applying Ministry guidelines, also reached the view that the Diamond Lounge was an open area for the purposes of the Act.
He advised Skycity accordingly on 9 March 2012.
He reviewed the information obtained by Mr Lokhande and the advice he had obtained from Mr Cornor and revisited the Diamond Lounge with Mr Lokhande to assess whether any changes had been made since the original investigation.
He also concluded that the Diamond Lounge was an open area, compliant with the Act.
He notified the applicants accordingly on 2 May 2012.
To assist with that task the Ministry developed a mathematical tool for analysing spaces — the Open Areas Calculator the Calculator.
In the alternative, they seek declarations under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 in the same terms as those sought under the Judicature Amendment Act.
He is content for me to confine my determination to the question of whether the enforcement officers erred in their use of the Calculator.
She accepts, however, that relief may be available by way of declarations under the Declaratory Judgments Act.
I will address first the question of whether there has been a decision which is judicially reviewable.
The Ministry asserts that the enforcement officers simply formed an opinion which is not subject to review.
Inspectors of Gaming wrote letters stating that, in their opinion, the game was illegal, directing that operations cease immediately and threatening enforcement action under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1977.
Hardie Boys J held that the inspectors were not empowered to decide whether an act was unlawful but simply to form an opinion and, on the basis of that opinion, to institute the necessary procedures for the decision problem gambling foundation of new zealand v attorney general legality to be made by the Court.
That occurs only when a decision to prosecute is made: or perhaps not until the Court gives judgment on the prosecution.
As already observed, that directly impacts on rights and liabilities.
In my respectful view, the conclusion reached by the inspectors cannot simply be characterised as the expression of an opinion.
It may be based on an opinion but it is, nevertheless, a determination which has important legal consequences.
They include the foreclosure of legal steps which could lead to a judicial determination.
I think Mr Webb was right to say that decisions such as Unitec and Orlov suggest that the law may have moved on since Sloan.
Certainly, those decisions are more in keeping with the liberal approach to the operation of the Judicature Amendment Act sanctioned in cases such link Webster v Auckland Harbour Board.
This is achieved by addressing the degree of enclosure of a space in mathematical terms.
The Calculator then determines the total area of permanent openings required to achieve an acceptable indoor air quality.
They say the Act requires a commonsense answer to a simple question.
The Guidelines and Calculator introduce the issue of air quality which the applicants say is no part of the statutory test.
Their case, as I understand it, is that the Guidelines direct enforcement officers away from the enquiry required by the statutory definition and effectively substitute a test which turns on assumed or postulated standards of air quality.
The Guidelines thereby purport to give effect to a policy that is outside the scope of the legislative purpose of the Act and operate as an unlawful fetter on the discretion of enforcement officers.
Ms Gambling casinos in curacao says that the Guidelines enable enforcement officers to derive assistance from the Calculator but ultimately gambling on internet make their own decision on whether a space is substantially enclosed.
Mr Webb explained that it was introduced against a background of international concern about the effects of second-hand smoke, particularly in the employment environment.
The second reading of the Bill took place shortly after the International Framework Convention on Tobacco Control the Convention was adopted.
It was ratified by New Zealand on 27 January 2004.
Article 8 provides: Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke 1 Parties recognise that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.
In the case of licensed premises, restaurants, casinos and gaming machine venues, this is achieved by prohibiting smoking in any part of the premises that is not an open area.
Parliament recognised that a total ban on smoking in enclosed areas was necessary.
In Northern Ireland, England and Wales, premises are substantially enclosed if they have a ceiling or roof but there are openings in the 23 Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act 2003 s 8.
Section 8 of the Amendment Act inserts ss 12 — 13B into the Act itself.
The New South Wales Supreme Court found the lower Court had erred in having regard to airflow in determining whether a gap as defined in the Regulations existed.
However, the decision turned on the interpretation of the Regulations.
It does not represent a wholesale rejection of the use of visit web page to determine whether a space is enclosed or not.
In contrast, the provisions affecting smokers in hospital care institutions, residential disability care institutions and rest homes provide for dedicated smoking rooms 27 The Smoke-free Premises and Enforcement Regulations 2006 UKreg 2; and The Smoke-free Premises etc.
Wales Regulations problem gambling foundation of new zealand v attorney general, reg 2.
First, it provides that in measuring floor area, permanent fixtures such as garden areas, fountains, pool tables and the like should be subtracted.
The Calculator stipulates that only floor areas that can be occupied by people are relevant because permanent fixtures:.
This arises because the optimal flow of ventilation is achieved by areas of equal size on opposite sides of a space and the least efficient with openings of unequal size on adjacent walls.
Mr Webb pointed out that this can lead to outcomes which plainly seem to be at odds with https://fukiya.info/gambling/new-vegas-gambling-trick.html statutory definition.
For the purpose of 31 Smoke-free Environments Act 1990, s 6 1 b.
But the fact remains that under the Guidelines whether or not a space is substantially enclosed depends on factors other than its physical dimensions.
There is nothing in the Act to mandate such an approach.
It is ultimately up to the individual enforcement officer to assess whether an area complies with the Act.
It is ultimately a tool that provides information to help enforcement officers decide whether to exercise their enforcement discretion.
The ultimate question is always whether an area is substantially enclosed.
Output from the Open Areas Calculator is not the only information that can be taken into account when determining an answer to that question.
For example, problem gambling foundation of new zealand v attorney general Open Areas Calculator is based on a number of simplifications and assumptions.
On the facts of a given case, more precise information may be available as to the airflow through a space for instance, an Architect or Engineer may provide premises-specific calculations.
It does not invite or require the enforcement officer to revisit the statutory definition.
For the purpose of the penultimate step, assessing compliance, enforcement officers are directed to: 7.
Their decisions were determined by the application of the Calculator.
That was an error.
The imposition of an inflexible standard is avoided at the cost of certainty.
However well intentioned, that is what happened here.
The simple factual question of whether or not a space is substantially enclosed is replaced by a calculation intended to assess airflow through the space.
That is contrary to the clear scheme and purpose of the statute.
If the parties are unable to agree, I will consider memoranda.
Problem Gambling Foundation of NZ - Go Figure
In the recent case of Attorney-General v. Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand, the Court of Appeal held that judicial review of commercial contracting ...
What do you mean?
It is remarkable, very useful phrase
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are mistaken. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
Clearly, thanks for the help in this question.
This topic is simply matchless
Certainly. I join told all above. Let's discuss this question.
It is a pity, that now I can not express - I am late for a meeting. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion on this question.
It has touched it! It has reached it!
I can speak much on this question.
Between us speaking, in my opinion, it is obvious. I recommend to look for the answer to your question in google.com
I confirm. And I have faced it. We can communicate on this theme. Here or in PM.
What phrase... super, remarkable idea
I consider, that you are not right. I am assured. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
You are not right. Let's discuss. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
I think, that you commit an error. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.
I not absolutely understand, what you mean?
Between us speaking.
I consider, that you are not right. I am assured. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
It is very a pity to me, I can help nothing to you. But it is assured, that you will find the correct decision.
In my opinion you commit an error. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
Do not pay attention!