- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Non-User
Non-user refers to the failure to exercise a legal right over land for a sufficiently long period of time.
Where a right is continuously unused, the law may eventually treat the right as abandoned or extinguished.
This commonly applies to rights connected with land, such as easements or rights of way.
The issue is closely connected with limitation principles and long periods of inactivity.
Non-user refers to the failure to exercise a legal right over land for a sufficiently long period of time.
Where a right is continuously unused, the law may eventually treat the right as abandoned or extinguished.
This commonly applies to rights connected with land, such as easements or rights of way.
The issue is closely connected with limitation principles and long periods of inactivity.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Non-Tariff Barriers
Non-tariff barriers are restrictions on international trade that do not involve customs duties or tariffs.
Instead of taxes on imports, these barriers take the form of special requirements or controls such as licences, quotas, technical regulations, or administrative restrictions.
Such measures can make it more difficult or expensive for foreign goods or services to enter a market.
Although sometimes justified for safety, environmental, or public policy reasons, non-tariff barriers may also operate as hidden forms of trade protection.
Non-tariff barriers are restrictions on international trade that do not involve customs duties or tariffs.
Instead of taxes on imports, these barriers take the form of special requirements or controls such as licences, quotas, technical regulations, or administrative restrictions.
Such measures can make it more difficult or expensive for foreign goods or services to enter a market.
Although sometimes justified for safety, environmental, or public policy reasons, non-tariff barriers may also operate as hidden forms of trade protection.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Non-Resident Parent
A non-resident parent is a parent who does not live with his or her child and may therefore be required to pay *child support maintenance.
The term replaced the older expression “absent parent.”
A non-resident parent usually has a legal responsibility to contribute financially to the upbringing of the child, even though the child primarily lives with the other parent or guardian.
The amount of child maintenance payable is generally assessed according to statutory child support rules.
A non-resident parent is a parent who does not live with his or her child and may therefore be required to pay *child support maintenance.
The term replaced the older expression “absent parent.”
A non-resident parent usually has a legal responsibility to contribute financially to the upbringing of the child, even though the child primarily lives with the other parent or guardian.
The amount of child maintenance payable is generally assessed according to statutory child support rules.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Non-Refoulement
Non-refoulement is a principle of international law prohibiting a state from returning a refugee to a country where they may face persecution, danger, or serious harm.
The principle is contained in Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Under this rule, a state must not expel or forcibly return a refugee to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened.
Non-refoulement is regarded as one of the fundamental protections in international refugee law and asylum systems.
The principle helps safeguard refugees from being sent back to situations involving persecution, violence, or other serious human rights abuses.
Non-refoulement is a principle of international law prohibiting a state from returning a refugee to a country where they may face persecution, danger, or serious harm.
The principle is contained in Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Under this rule, a state must not expel or forcibly return a refugee to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened.
Non-refoulement is regarded as one of the fundamental protections in international refugee law and asylum systems.
The principle helps safeguard refugees from being sent back to situations involving persecution, violence, or other serious human rights abuses.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Nonprovable Debt
A nonprovable debt is a debt that cannot be claimed or proved during bankruptcy proceedings.
Such debts are excluded from the distribution of the bankrupt person’s assets among creditors.
Examples include statute-barred debts and debts that are too uncertain to be fixed or reasonably estimated.
Because these liabilities cannot be formally proved in bankruptcy, creditors are generally unable to recover payment through the bankruptcy process.
The concept distinguishes nonprovable debts from provable debts, which may be recognized and paid in insolvency proceedings.
A nonprovable debt is a debt that cannot be claimed or proved during bankruptcy proceedings.
Such debts are excluded from the distribution of the bankrupt person’s assets among creditors.
Examples include statute-barred debts and debts that are too uncertain to be fixed or reasonably estimated.
Because these liabilities cannot be formally proved in bankruptcy, creditors are generally unable to recover payment through the bankruptcy process.
The concept distinguishes nonprovable debts from provable debts, which may be recognized and paid in insolvency proceedings.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Non-Molestation Order
A non-molestation order is a protective court order made under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996.
The order prevents a person from molesting or harassing another person with whom they are associated, such as a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant, relative, or former intimate partner.
Molestation is interpreted broadly and includes not only physical violence but also threatening behaviour, intimidation, harassment, or repeated unwanted contact.
The order may also be made for the protection of a child connected to the parties.
When deciding whether to grant the order, the court considers the need to protect the health, safety, and wellbeing of the applicant and any relevant child, and breach of the order is a criminal offence.
A non-molestation order is a protective court order made under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996.
The order prevents a person from molesting or harassing another person with whom they are associated, such as a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant, relative, or former intimate partner.
Molestation is interpreted broadly and includes not only physical violence but also threatening behaviour, intimidation, harassment, or repeated unwanted contact.
The order may also be made for the protection of a child connected to the parties.
When deciding whether to grant the order, the court considers the need to protect the health, safety, and wellbeing of the applicant and any relevant child, and breach of the order is a criminal offence.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Non Licet
Non licet is a Latin expression meaning “not permitted.”
The phrase is used in legal contexts to indicate that a particular act, conduct, or course of action is prohibited by law.
It reflects the principle that certain behaviour is legally unauthorized or forbidden.
The expression may appear in legal writings, judgments, or academic discussions involving restrictions imposed by law.
Although rarely used in modern everyday practice, it remains part of traditional legal terminology.
Non licet is a Latin expression meaning “not permitted.”
The phrase is used in legal contexts to indicate that a particular act, conduct, or course of action is prohibited by law.
It reflects the principle that certain behaviour is legally unauthorized or forbidden.
The expression may appear in legal writings, judgments, or academic discussions involving restrictions imposed by law.
Although rarely used in modern everyday practice, it remains part of traditional legal terminology.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Nonjoinder
Nonjoinder refers to the failure to include all necessary parties in a legal action.
Historically, nonjoinder could be raised as a plea in abatement, arguing that the proceedings were defective because an essential person had not been joined to the case.
Modern civil procedure no longer causes an action to fail merely because of nonjoinder.
Instead, the defect can usually be corrected through amendment or by adding or substituting parties under Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The purpose of these rules is to ensure that all relevant persons are properly represented so that the court can resolve the dispute effectively and fairly.
Nonjoinder refers to the failure to include all necessary parties in a legal action.
Historically, nonjoinder could be raised as a plea in abatement, arguing that the proceedings were defective because an essential person had not been joined to the case.
Modern civil procedure no longer causes an action to fail merely because of nonjoinder.
Instead, the defect can usually be corrected through amendment or by adding or substituting parties under Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The purpose of these rules is to ensure that all relevant persons are properly represented so that the court can resolve the dispute effectively and fairly.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Non-Intervention Principle (No Order Principle)
The non-intervention principle, also known as the no order principle, is a rule introduced by section 1 of the Children Act 1989.
It provides that when a court is considering whether to make an order concerning a child, the court should only do so if making the order would positively improve or promote the child’s welfare.
The principle reflects the idea that unnecessary legal intervention in family life should be avoided.
Courts therefore begin from the position that making no order may sometimes be better for the child than imposing formal legal arrangements.
This principle works together with the welfare principle, under which the child’s welfare remains the court’s paramount consideration.
The non-intervention principle, also known as the no order principle, is a rule introduced by section 1 of the Children Act 1989.
It provides that when a court is considering whether to make an order concerning a child, the court should only do so if making the order would positively improve or promote the child’s welfare.
The principle reflects the idea that unnecessary legal intervention in family life should be avoided.
Courts therefore begin from the position that making no order may sometimes be better for the child than imposing formal legal arrangements.
This principle works together with the welfare principle, under which the child’s welfare remains the court’s paramount consideration.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Non-Insane Automatism
Non-insane automatism refers to involuntary conduct caused by an external factor where the defendant is not suffering from legal insanity.
A person acting in such a state lacks conscious control over their actions and therefore may not be criminally liable because the conduct was not voluntary.
Examples include actions performed while suffering from concussion, reflex movements, hypnotic states, spasms, or certain medical conditions such as a diabetic hypoglycaemic episode.
The defence is only available where the automatism was not self-induced and where the defendant did not knowingly fail to take reasonable steps to prevent the condition.
If established successfully, non-insane automatism results in a complete acquittal because the essential voluntary element of the offence is absent.
Non-insane automatism refers to involuntary conduct caused by an external factor where the defendant is not suffering from legal insanity.
A person acting in such a state lacks conscious control over their actions and therefore may not be criminally liable because the conduct was not voluntary.
Examples include actions performed while suffering from concussion, reflex movements, hypnotic states, spasms, or certain medical conditions such as a diabetic hypoglycaemic episode.
The defence is only available where the automatism was not self-induced and where the defendant did not knowingly fail to take reasonable steps to prevent the condition.
If established successfully, non-insane automatism results in a complete acquittal because the essential voluntary element of the offence is absent.