The “just and equitable” test in New Zealand’s strata law: reflections and lessons for other jurisdictions

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
T. Gibbons
{"title":"The “just and equitable” test in New Zealand’s strata law: reflections and lessons for other jurisdictions","authors":"T. Gibbons","doi":"10.1108/jppel-05-2023-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of the paper is to examine the phrase “just and equitable”, and associated terminology, within New Zealand’s strata law, to inform other jurisdictions. In particular, this paper temporarily suspends the notion of a statutory hendiadys to consider what kind of justice is reflected in judicial consideration of the phrase.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper takes a mixed-methods approach, drawing on a combination of black-letter law, property law theory and insights from literary and philosophical analysis.\n\n\nFindings\nWhile justice is often considered as “treating like cases alike”, this is not apparent from this study. The analysis shows that different kinds of justice outcomes emerge, with some emphasis on justice as economic efficiency. In addition, the paper highlights the inherent uncertainty in what is “just and equitable” and how associated disjunctive phrases, such as “unjust or inequitable” are still treated as hendiadys, but are no more clear.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe research is limited to consideration of a single jurisdiction (New Zealand), though the useful degree of case law from this jurisdiction provides broad insight.\n\n\nPractical implications\nAmong other things, the paper argues for further consideration of the usefulness of the “just and equitable” test in light of the kind of justice we want to achieve. The addition of mandatory considerations to existing statutory tests may allow more of a focus, beyond the exigencies of individual cases or narrow outcomes of economic efficiency.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nWhile there is existing literature on the “just and equitable” phrase within strata law, the paper is the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to provide an analysis focused on how suspending the statutory hendiadys normally inherent in “just and equitable” provides insight into the kind of justice that emerges from the application of this test within a single strata jurisdiction. As such, the paper provides lessons for other jurisdictions on how to improve relevant statute and case law outcomes.\n","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jppel-05-2023-0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to examine the phrase “just and equitable”, and associated terminology, within New Zealand’s strata law, to inform other jurisdictions. In particular, this paper temporarily suspends the notion of a statutory hendiadys to consider what kind of justice is reflected in judicial consideration of the phrase. Design/methodology/approach This paper takes a mixed-methods approach, drawing on a combination of black-letter law, property law theory and insights from literary and philosophical analysis. Findings While justice is often considered as “treating like cases alike”, this is not apparent from this study. The analysis shows that different kinds of justice outcomes emerge, with some emphasis on justice as economic efficiency. In addition, the paper highlights the inherent uncertainty in what is “just and equitable” and how associated disjunctive phrases, such as “unjust or inequitable” are still treated as hendiadys, but are no more clear. Research limitations/implications The research is limited to consideration of a single jurisdiction (New Zealand), though the useful degree of case law from this jurisdiction provides broad insight. Practical implications Among other things, the paper argues for further consideration of the usefulness of the “just and equitable” test in light of the kind of justice we want to achieve. The addition of mandatory considerations to existing statutory tests may allow more of a focus, beyond the exigencies of individual cases or narrow outcomes of economic efficiency. Originality/value While there is existing literature on the “just and equitable” phrase within strata law, the paper is the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to provide an analysis focused on how suspending the statutory hendiadys normally inherent in “just and equitable” provides insight into the kind of justice that emerges from the application of this test within a single strata jurisdiction. As such, the paper provides lessons for other jurisdictions on how to improve relevant statute and case law outcomes.
新西兰地级法中的“公正与公平”检验:对其他司法管辖区的反思与教训
本文的目的是研究新西兰地级法中的“公正与公平”一词及其相关术语,以向其他司法管辖区提供信息。特别地,本文暂时悬置了法定审判的概念,来思考司法审判中体现的是什么样的正义。设计/方法/方法本文采用混合方法,结合黑体法、物权法理论以及文学和哲学分析的见解。虽然正义通常被认为是“一视同仁”,但从这项研究中并不明显。分析表明,不同类型的司法结果出现,并强调司法作为经济效率。此外,本文强调了什么是“公正与公平”的内在不确定性,以及“不公正或不公平”等相关的析取短语如何仍然被视为过时,但并不更加明确。研究局限/启示研究仅限于考虑一个单一的司法管辖区(新西兰),尽管该司法管辖区的判例法的有用程度提供了广泛的见解。实际意义除其他事项外,该文件主张根据我们想要实现的正义,进一步考虑“公正和公平”测试的有用性。在现有的法定检验中增加强制性的考虑因素,可以使重点更加集中,而不局限于个别案件的紧急情况或经济效率的狭隘结果。原创性/价值虽然已有关于地层法中“公正与公平”一词的文献,但据作者所知,本文是第一个提供分析的,重点是如何暂停“公正与公平”中通常固有的法定时效,从而深入了解在单一地层管辖范围内应用这一检验所产生的正义。因此,本文为其他司法管辖区提供了如何改进相关成文法和判例法结果的经验教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信