Practice Statement No 1 Of 2022

[Beverly Friddle]

The IFRS Foundation is a not-for-profit, public interest organisation established to develop high-quality, understandable, enforceable and globally accepted accounting and sustainability disclosure standards.

IFRS Sustainability Standards are developed to enhance investor-company dialogue so that investors receive decision-useful, globally comparable sustainability-related disclosures that meet their information needs. The ISSB is supported by technical staff and a range of advisory bodies.

IFRS Practice Statement 2: Making Materiality Judgements (Practice Statement) provides companies with guidance on how to make materiality judgements when preparing their general purpose financial statements in accordance with IFRS Standards.

The need for materiality judgements is pervasive in the preparation of financial statements. IFRS Standards require companies to make materiality judgements in decisions about recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure.

The Practice Statement is a non-mandatory document. It does not change or introduce any requirements in IFRS Standards and companies are not required to comply with it to state compliance with IFRS Standards.

IFRS Practice Statement 2 Making Materiality Judgements was issued in September 2017 for application from 14 September 2017. The text of the Basis for Conclusions is contained in Part C of this edition.

We use cookies on ifrs.org to ensure the best user experience possible. For example, cookies allow us to manage registrations, meaning you can watch meetings and submit comment letters. Cookies that tell us how often certain content is accessed help us create better, more informative content for users.

We use analytics cookies to generate aggregated information about the usage of our website. This helps guide our content strategy to provide better, more informative content for our users. It also helps us ensure that the website is functioning correctly and that it is available as widely as possible.None of this information can be tracked to individual users.

Preference cookies allow us to offer additional functionality to improve the user experience on the site. Examples include choosing to stay logged in for longer than one session, or following specific content.

The Practice Statement [1966] 3 All ER 77[1] was a statement made in the House of Lords by Lord Gardiner LC on 26 July 1966 on behalf of himself and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, that they would depart from precedent in the Lords in order to achieve justice.

Until the year 1966, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom was bound to follow all of its previous decisions under the principle of stare decisis, even if this created "injustice" and "unduly restrict(s) the proper development of the law" (London Tramways Co. v London County Council [1898] AC 375). The Practice Statement 1966 is authority for the House of Lords to depart from their previous decisions. It does not affect the precedential value of cases in lower courts; all other courts that recognise the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) as the court of last resort are still bound by Supreme Court (and House of Lords) decisions. Before this, the only way a binding precedent could be avoided was to create new legislation on the matter.

A germane example is the case of Anderton v Ryan (1985)[2] where the House of Lords interpreted the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 in such a way as to make the Act virtually ineffective. Only one year later in R v Shivpuri (1986)[3] Lord Bridge (a member of the erroneous majority in Anderton) acknowledged the error and said "the Practice Statement is an effective abandonment of our pretension to infallibility. If a serious error embodied in a decision of this House has been distorted by the law, the sooner it is corrected the better".[4]

By contrast, in Knuller v DPP,[5] Lord Reid, who had previously given a strong dissenting judgment in Shaw v DPP,[6] said while he still disagreed with the majority decision in that case, in the interests of certainty he would not overturn Shaw (even though the Practice Statement had given authority to do so).

Suggestions that a rigid adherence to stare decisis be dropped had been made prior to 1966, initially by Lord Wright in an article for the Cambridge Law Journal in 1943, and by Lord Gardiner and others in the 1963 book, Law Reform Now.[7][8]

Their Lordships regard the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases. It provides at least some degree of certainty upon which individuals can rely in the conduct of their affairs, as well as a basis for orderly development of legal rules.

Their Lordships nevertheless recognise that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose therefore, to modify their present practice and, while treating former decisions of this house as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so.

In this connection they will bear in mind the danger of disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlement of property, and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and also the especial need for certainty as to the criminal law.

Louis Blom-Cooper described the change brought about by the Practice Statement as being as if the Lords "dropped a pebble into the judicial pool that produced not merely a few ripples but also a seismic wave in English juridicial thinking ... the story of that legally historic event displays the carapace of traditional English lawyers' disinclination readily to accept radical change and to the cautious application of such change, once it is ultimately conceded".[7]

Following the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was established in 2009. It follows the precedent of its predecessor. In Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark[9] Lord Hope, writing for the majority, comments on the Practice Statement's applicability to the new court:

Living with a wound can lead to loss of independence or control; all individuals should have the chance to understand their condition, be involved in decisions about treatment and take responsibility for managing their wound where they are able to do so. For this reason, an international group of wound care experts met in May 2015 to discuss the potential ways to empower, engage and support patients living with a wound.

The group acknowledged that to achieve a shift in thinking around patient involvement in wound management, a common, agreed understanding of its impact and its added value with a defined meaning is needed. Discussions centred on the current drivers for policy changes that encourage patient involvement in general and evaluated whether there are different levels of patient involvement, and how these can be best achieved for patients living with a wound. Initiatives that encourage patient self-management and the types of support that people might expect were also discussed alongside the potential Impact patient involvement may have on the delivery of future healthcare services.

The conclusions reached form the basis of this document, which aims to provide best practice statements that offer practical guidance to clinicians to deliver services in a manner that encourages patients to be more involved in their wound care according to their ability, and encourages a meaningful shift in perception to build a deeper understanding of the concept.

Background: Advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) have been recognized in Louisiana since 1981 and licensed since 1996. Rules regarding prescriptive authority for advanced practice registered nurses were jointly promulgated in 1996 by the Louisiana State Board of Nursing (LSBN) and the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (LSBME). Current statutes allow APRNs to medically diagnose and medically manage patients (including but not limited to prescriptions for legend and certain controlled drugs, assessment studies, therapeutic regimens, medical devices and appliances) within the parameters of a collaborative practice agreement which is a written statement/ document mutually agreed upon by the APRN and one or more licensed physicians or dentists.

Louisiana law allows and authorizes the LSBN and the LSBME to establish and publish standards of practice and to regulate the practice of their licensees including the collaborative practice. The safety and welfare of the citizens of Louisiana is given primary consideration in the issuing of a Joint Position Statement.

Goal: In providing this Statement, it is the intent of the LSBN and the LSBME to: (i) safeguard the life and health of the citizens of Louisiana through promotion of safe and competent practice; (ii) provide guidance to advanced practice registered nurses and physicians licensed in Louisiana in order to meet the expectation and requirements for practice in this state; and (iii) foster compliance with regulations in Louisiana.

The advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) must submit the required forms, fees, and collaborative practice agreement to the LSBN and receive formal approval to be authorized to enter into collaborative practice with a physician. Nothing prohibits an APRN from consulting with additional health care providers as needed to provide for the care of the patient. It is the responsibility of the APRN to understand and abide by the requirements of LSBN in all matters related to prescriptive authority.

Furthermore, to properly provide joint management, the collaborating physician must be actively engaged in the provision of patient care within the state of Louisiana. The collaborating physician must be providing patient care in the same or a practice comparable in scope, specialty or expertise to that of the advanced practice registered nurse. Physicians who are retired or are otherwise not providing patient care services on a consistent basis cannot serve as a collaborating physician. This does not exclude locum tenens physicians who may serve as a collaborating physician while they are providing care in Louisiana.

c80f0f1006