Browsing by Author "Namasivayam, Pratima"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Restricted
Dynamics of Enacting ss 3A, 3B and 3C of the Electoral Act 1992: a Lesson on How to Resolve the Political Gridlock
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Namasivayam, Pratima
This article explores the enactment of ss 3A, 3B and 3C of the Electoral Act as a frame within which to examine how the dynamics involved in enacting legislation can resolve political gridlocks. Through such analysis the paper emphasises how political and procedural factors mould legislative provisions. This paper argues that the manner in which the pre- legislative process and legislative process was choreographed in the enactment of these sections allowed the Government to harness the inherent dignity and power of the parliamentary process to legitimatise policy.
Restricted
Product Disclosure Statement: Can It Succeed in Correcting the Imperfect Construct That Is the Information Disclosure Regime?
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Namasivayam, Pratima
The new Financial Market Conduct Bill will introduce a single disclosure document called Product Disclosure Statement (PDS). This paper is an examination of whether the proposed PDS can correct the imperfect construct that is information disclosure in the securities sector.
Restricted
Wrongful Conception: An Introduction into Entitlements Post-Allenby
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2013) Namasivayam, Pratima
This paper, in light of the recent Supreme Court’s decision in Allenby v H, examines the state of entitlements available under New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme for unwanted conceptions. It argues that not only are the entitlements under the scheme limited in comparison to those available as common law damages in other jurisdictions but that the Supreme Court’s decision exacerbated discrepancies already present in the scheme. It demonstrates that courts in general struggle to address the extent of entitlements that can and should be recognised in cases of unwanted conception, and concludes that Allenby provides the strongest signal so far that explicit statutory clarity is required on the matter and it is the legislature (rather than the courts) which is best placed to do so.