Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
As published
126 Defences to breach of obligation
(1) In proceedings for breach of an obligation under a conservation covenant it is a defence to show—
(a) that the breach occurred as a result of a matter beyond the defendant’s control,
(b) that the breach occurred as a result of doing, or not doing, something in an emergency in circumstances where it was necessary for that to be done, or not done, in order to prevent loss of life or injury to any person, or
(c) that at the time of the breach—
(i) the land to which the obligation relates was, or was within an area, designated for a public purpose, and
(ii) compliance with the obligation would have involved a breach of any statutory control applying as a result of the designation.
(2) If the only reason for the application of subsection (1)(c) was failure to obtain authorisation, the defendant must also show that all reasonable steps to obtain authorisation had been taken.
(3) The defence under subsection (1)(c) does not apply if the designation was in force when the conservation covenant was created.
(4) The defence of statutory authority (which applies in relation to the infringement of rights such as easements by a person acting under statutory authority) applies in relation to breach of an obligation under a conservation covenant.
(5) In this section—
“authorisation” means any approval, confirmation, consent, licence, permission or other authorisation (however described), whether special or general;
“statutory control” means control imposed by provision contained in, or having effect under, an Act.
Your change, as a redline
126 Defences to breach of obligation
(1) In proceedings for breach of an obligation under a conservation covenant it is a defence to show—
(a) that the breach occurred as a result of a matter beyond the defendant’s control,
(b) that the breach occurred as a result of doing, or not doing, something in an emergency in circumstances where it was necessary for that to be done, or not done, in order to prevent loss of life or injury to any person, or
(c) that at the time of the breach—
(i) the land to which the obligation relates was, or was within an area, designated for a public purpose, and
(ii) compliance with the obligation would have involved a breach of any statutory control applying as a result of the designation.
(2) If the only reason for the application of subsection (1)(c) was failure to obtain authorisation, the defendant must also show that all reasonable steps to obtain authorisation had been taken.
(3) The defence under subsection (1)(c) does not apply if the designation was in force when the conservation covenant was created.
(4) The defence of statutory authority (which applies in relation to the infringement of rights such as easements by a person acting under statutory authority) applies in relation to breach of an obligation under a conservation covenant.
(5) In this section—
“authorisation” means any approval, confirmation, consent, licence, permission or other authorisation (however described), whether special or general;
“statutory control” means control imposed by provision contained in, or having effect under, an Act.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.