Courts must consider specific compliance actions when deciding if an executive officer took reasonable steps to prevent offences under the Heritage and Environment Protection Acts.

Courts must check for regular professional assessments; the implementation of recommendations; and staff knowledge of rules when deciding if an executive officer took reasonable steps to prevent offences under the Fisheries, Biosecurity, and Assisted Reproductive Technology Acts.

Defendants in residential property sale disputes carry the burden of proving they met specific legal requirements.

The law defines impairment of electronic communication as preventing communication or damaging a network; it excludes the mere interception of messages.

The Human Rights Commission Act now refers to any employee or agent of an occupier.

When deciding if a company executive took reasonable steps to prevent a crime, courts must now consider if the executive: - had professional assessments done regularly - followed the recommendations from those assessments - ensured employees, agents, and contractors knew their obligations. This applies to crimes under the Assisted Reproductive Technology, Biosecurity, and Fisheries acts.

For crimes under the Environment Protection and Heritage acts, courts must consider what an executive did once they became aware that a crime was happening or might happen. This helps the court decide if the executive took reasonable steps to prevent the crime.

In residential property sale disputes, the person being sued (the defendant) is responsible for providing the evidence to prove the matters mentioned in the law.

The law now defines 'impairing electronic communication' as stopping communication or damaging an electronic link or network. This definition does not include simply intercepting a communication.

When deciding if an executive officer took reasonable steps to prevent a crime, courts must now consider if the officer used professional assessments, followed recommendations, and ensured employees had the right knowledge. This applies to crimes under the Heritage, Fisheries, Environment Protection, Assisted Reproductive Technology, and Biosecurity Acts.

In cases involving the sale of residential property, the person accused of a crime must provide the evidence to show they took reasonable steps to prevent the offence.

The law now defines 'impairing electronic communication' as blocking communication or damaging an electronic link or network. This does not include simply intercepting a message.

Under the Human Rights Commission Act, the law now refers to 'any employee or agent of the occupier' rather than 'his or her employees and agents'.