Search Results

1. [2020] NZIACDT 35 - NZQA (Seavor-Cross) v Jin (7 August 2020) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...[2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 4 Section 50. 5 Section 51(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 6, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 7 [33] There are no submissions from the complainant or the adviser. [34] No party has requested an oral hearing. ASSESSMENT [35] The Registrar relies on the following provisions of the Code: General 1....

2. BORA - Abortion Legislation Bill: Attorney-General's opinion [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...Depending on the result of the anatomy scan, further testing may be required to check for congenital abnormalities. 7 2 B v Waitemata District Health Board [2017] NZSC 88, [2017] 1 NZLR 823 at [101] and n 121. 3 Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456 at [109]. 4 Law Commission Alternative approaches to abortion law: Ministerial briefing paper (NZLC MB4, 2018) at para 4.74. 5 Ministry of Health “Screening...

3. NTT v Gong [2019] NZIACDT 56 (5 August 2019) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...[2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 4 Section 50. 5 Section 51(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 6, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 6 [30] There are no submissions from the complainant. [31] Ms Gong has produced a statement of reply, dated 11 January 2018, together with submissions from her counsel of 19 January 2018 and an affidavit from...

4. Provisional figures - August 2019 [pdf, 766 KB]

   ...Asian Māori Pacific European and other Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate 2007/2008 21 5.93 87 15.39 24 9.05 408 13.26 2008/2009 10 2.82 95 16.81 26 9.81 400 13.00 2009/2010 22 6.21 105 18.58 31 11.69 383 12.45 2010/2011 19 5.36 101 17.87 22 8.30 416 13.52 2011/2012 19 5.36 132 23.34 31 11.69 365 11.24 2012/2013 28 7.90 105 18.58 24 9.05 384 12.48 2013/2014 22 4.66 108 18.04 26 8.79 373 11.25 2014/2015 16 3.39 130 21.72 27 9.12 391 11.80 2015/2016 39 8.27 129 2...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 74 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...[reopening determination]. 7 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [2020] NZEmpC 171 [reopening judgment]. 8 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [2021] NZCA 13 [CA judgment]. 9 Reopening judgment, above n 7, at [24]. 10 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [2021] NZSC 101 [SC judgment]. The parties agree on factors to be considered [10] As both parties note, in dealing with an application for leave to extend time, the overarching consideration is the interests of justice.11 The specific factor...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 232 Kang v Saena Company Ltd [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...Relevant to the present case is the observation made by the full Court in Fagotti that there is significant value in a commonly applied, and well published, notional daily rate for costs in the Authority.21 19 Rangitaawa-Kaui v UBP Ltd [2022] NZERA 101 at [11]. (The Authority did award an extra 0.25 for submissions lodged after the meeting, but there is no indication, at least in the determination, that this is commonplace). 20 PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [20...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 190 Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand v Culturesafe NZ Ltd (in liq) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...804. 8 Garthwaite v Garthwaite [1964] P 356 (CA) at 387. 9 Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 47, [2007] 1 AC 521. 10 At [66]. 11 Bay of Plenty District Health Board v Culturesafe New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZERA 101 (Member Tetitaha). [27] Various procedural steps were taken thereafter. The main step was the resolution of an agreed preliminary question as to the scope of the Authority’s jurisdiction.12 [28] Earlier this year, an amend...

8. [2022] NZIACDT 28 - DD v Pabellon (15 November 2022) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 4 Section 50. 5 Section 51(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151]. 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 6, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 7 [30] There is a statement of reply (19 January 2022) from the complainant. He says it was obvious he was ineligible for the skilled migrant visa. The matter had cost him $8,775 in total, including a con...

9. Williams v Pukahukiwi Kaokaoroa 2 Inc - Pukahukiwi Kaokaoroa 2 Inc (2023) 295 Waiariki MB 97 (295 WAR 97) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...shareholders and the public, the law is silent as to whether Parliament intended that this should apply to the whole register or simply the personal information held about the person who is requesting access. The respondent claims 295 Waiariki MB 101 wording does not require that the whole register be made available, so their approach of providing an excerpt is in line with the legislative requirements. [18] The respondent submits that s 56 of the Privacy Act is a useful extr...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 077 Wellington Regional Council v Crosbie [pdf, 185 KB]

    ...unmeritorious point and failed; vi. whether any party has been required to prove facts which, in the Court’s opinion having heard the evidence, should have been admitted by other parties. 3 Goodwin v Wellington City Council [2021] NZEnvC 101 at [41]. 6 [15] The Regional Council submits that it was required to bring the enforcement proceedings against Ms Crosbie and Mr Page to ensure compliance with the resource consent and prevent the ongoing discharge of contamin...