Research Commons
      • Browse 
        • Communities & Collections
        • Titles
        • Authors
        • By Issue Date
        • Subjects
        • Types
        • Series
      • Help 
        • About
        • Collection Policy
        • OA Mandate Guidelines
        • Guidelines FAQ
        • Contact Us
      • My Account 
        • Sign In
        • Register
      View Item 
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Law
      • Law Papers
      • View Item
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Law
      • Law Papers
      • View Item
      JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

      Case Comment: Re Family First New Zealand

      Chevalier-Watts, Juliet
      Thumbnail
      Files
      Chevalier-Watts - RJA - Case Comment Family First New Zealand.pdf
      Published version, 896.2Kb
      Link
       www.waikato.ac.nz
      Find in your library  
      Citation
      Export citation
      Chevalier-Watts, J. (2015). Case Comment: Re Family First New Zealand. Waikato Law Review, 23, 186–189.
      Permanent Research Commons link: https://hdl.handle.net/10289/11198
      Abstract
      Re Family First New Zealand¹ has been a much anticipated case because it is the first case, as far as the author is aware, to have considered, and applied the principles set out so eloquently in the 2014 Supreme Court case of Re Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc.² The Greenpeace decision was fundamental with regard to charity law in New Zealand because the majority of the Court held that political purposes and charitable purposes were not mutually exclusive and asserted that “[i]t is difficult to construct any adequate or principled theory to support blanket exclusion” in relation to political purpose or advocacy.³ As a result, the exclusion of political purpose in charity law is now unnecessary in New Zealand. The High Court case of Re Family First therefore provides the first consideration of this contemporary approach. In summary, Collins J allowed the appeal brought by Family First against the Charities Board of the Department of Internal Affairs – Charities Services (the Board), in which it was determined that Family First was no longer eligible to be registered as a charitable trust. In allowing the appeal, his Honour directed the Board to reconsider Family First’s application, in light of the Greenpeace judgment, and indeed, this judgment. In arriving at that conclusion, Collins J provided some useful consideration of charity law principles.
      Date
      2015
      Type
      Journal Article
      Publisher
      University of Waikato
      Rights
      This article is published in the Waikato Law Review. Used with permission.
      Collections
      • Law Papers [301]
      Show full item record  

      Usage

      Downloads, last 12 months
      84
       
       

      Usage Statistics

      For this itemFor all of Research Commons

      The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o WaikatoFeedback and RequestsCopyright and Legal Statement