3434 items matching your search terms
...have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act. Jeff Orr Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel 3 Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [162].
...referred to in the pleadings. 6 Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v Pender [2019] NZEmpC 86 at [49]-[53]. 7 Morgan v Whanganui College Board of Trustees, above n 2, at [11]. 8 Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 101(ab), 143(b). 9 Morgan v Whanganui College Board of Trustees, above n 2, at [27]. [18] Accordingly, paragraph 32 of the statement of claim is struck out. An amended statement of claim omitting that paragraph is to be filed an...
...the search power in cl 12 is reasonable, we have considered the importance of the objective sought to be achieved and whether the provisions are rationally connected and proportionate to that objective. 1 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. 2 Hamed v R, above n 1, at [162] per Blanchard J 3 Hamed v R, above n 1, at [172]. 14. On balance, we consider that the search power in new s 104(3)(c) is reasonable for the purposes o...
...operation of Remediation (NZ) Limited's waste management facility Lodgement: ENV-2021-AKL-000059 Remediation (NZ) Limited v Taranaki Regional Council Initiator Remediation (NZ) Limited DeAnne Brabant, Brabant Law, Legal House, Level 7, 101 Lambton Quay, Wellington 6011 Initiator Remediation (NZ) Limited John Maassen, PO Box 5577, Wellington 6145 Initiator Remediation (NZ) Limited Rochelle Stevens, NO COUNSEL FIRM ADDRESS AVAILABLE FOR Nicholsons Respondent Taranaki Region...
...Bill’s objective. 1 The Supreme Court has held that an unreasonable search logically cannot be demonstrably justified under section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act and therefore the inquiry does not need to be undertaken (see Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [162] per Blanchard J). Rather, s 21 is self-limiting in that the assessment to be undertaken is whether the search power is reasonable. 2 Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7, [2007] 3 NZLR 1. 14. The strict liability offe...
...requirement imposed under s 114(2). 26 See too Dickson v Unilever New Zealand Ltd (2009) 6 NZELR 463 at [28]. Compare Abernethy v Dynea New Zealand (No 2) [2007] ERNZ 462 at [63]. 27 Section 101(ab); Creedy at [39]. 28 Section 101(a), (b). See too, for example, Board of Trustees of Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake O Tawhiuau v Edmonds [2008] ERNZ 139 at [40], [58]. [41] Ultimately, the issue of whether an employee has done enough t...
...– s 338(5) TTWMA; c) The excluded site is then partitioned in favour of Erana Waiomio – s 296(1) TTWMA. 1 As at 12 November 2010 according to the List of Current Owners’ Report. 2 101 Rotorua MB 132 (101 ROT 132). 91 Waiariki MB 175 Background [5] It is necessary to briefly set out some of the background to the present application. I have already referred to the s 440/53 order made by the Māori Land Court on...
...Authority was reduced to writing and/or signed by Mr P on 15 November 2006 with Mr P signing on behalf of himself and Mrs P. (“the Complaints Committee Representation Charge”) [e] That from, on, and after 23 June 2008, in breach of Section 101(6) of the Law Practitioners Act 1982, without lawful justification or excuse he refused or failed, and continued to refuse or fail, to comply with the lawful requirement of Complaints Committee No.1 of the Auckland District Law Society mad...
...legal test as follows: 8 7 Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203. 8 Waaka v Harrison – Poike 14 (2015) 101 Waikato Maniapoto MB 216 (101 WMN 216) at [26]. 138 Waiariki MB 143 First, there must be an assessment of the trustees’ performance taking into account an assessment of the standard duties and the special nature of Māori land trust...
...for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to his feelings.1 However, the Authority considered that Mr Gildenhuys contributed 1 Gildenhuys v Cornish Truck & Van Ltd [2017] NZERA Auckland 101. to the situation that led to his dismissal and reduced the compensation award by 20 per cent. [3] Where the Court hears a challenge, it must make its own decision on the matters before it and once it makes its decision, the de...