Search Results

1. Justice Statistics data tables - notes and trends June 2022 [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...person was found not guilty, or the charge was withdrawn or dismissed) as their most serious charge outcome. “Three strikes” offences In 2021/2022, 1,184 people received a first warning for a stage-1 offence ('first strike'), 110 people received a final warning for a stage-2 offence ('second strike') and 4 people had a stage-3 offence (‘third strike’). Children adopted In 2021/2022, 114 adoption applications were filed in New Zealand. This numb...

2. Brown v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Weekly Compensation) [2023] NZACC 56 [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...two aspects of shareholder- employee earnings and which are to be considered the subsection (2) amount in Section 15. 1 McSherry v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACC 96. 2 Nicholas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2008] NZACC 110. 11 [39] In Davis,3 Judge Beattie stated: [22] The relevant words in Clause 31 involve the consideration of whether or not the tax return has been unreasonably influenced by the fact of the claimant's incapacity. Those words c...

3. Tana v Mahanga - Pukahakaha East 5B (2024) 270 Taitokerau MB 272 (270 TTK 272) [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...who are his whānau, the stress and cost of litigation. His actions to date illustrate otherwise. [59] Nor has Mr Tana addressed the reputational damage that the Trust say they have endured due to his applications. 15 [1998] 2 NZLR 103 at 110. 270 Taitokerau MB 282 [60] The Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (“the Act”) talks about the protection of “rangatiratanga”, as is embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi. It also speaks about land being a “taonga t...

4. Phillips v Scott - Ōuri 1A3 [2024] Māori Appellate Court MB 84 (2024 APPEAL 84) [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...Trustees of the Te Hanataua Trust - Ōuri 1A3 [2024] Māori Appellate Court MB 84 (2024 APPEAL 84) I TE KOOTI PĪRA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O AOTEA In the Māori Appellate Court of New Zealand Aotea District APPEAL 2023/7 AP-20230000031107 WĀHANGA Under Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of ŌURI 1A3 I WAENGA I A Between DONNA POKERE PHILLIPS Kaitono Pīra Appellant ME And CAROLINE TAPUO...

5. Fergusson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2023] NZACC 119 [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...inconvenient, anomalous or illogical”. [41] Employing s 15 in this way, is not inconsistent with clause 31 in the Schedule. The Schedule contains a wide range of detail to assist with the 1 Nicholas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2008] NZACC 110. 2 Accident Compensation Corporation v Davis [2011] NZACC 134. 3 Irwin v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZACC 58. 9 administration of the broad principles of the Act as set out in the sections including s 15. Ul...

6. Director of Proceedings v Te Whatu Ora [2023] NZHRRT 32 [pdf, 461 KB]

   ...resuscitation bay “to allow closer monitoring + management if deteriorates further”. At this time, Mrs A was still awaiting a bed in the CCU, and it was noted that there was a one-hour wait. 26. At 9pm Mrs A’s systolic BP dropped from 110mmHg to 88mmHg, and a second bag of saline was commenced in an attempt to raise this. Her systolic BP was then measured again, and noted to have risen to 100mmHg. It is not clear from the clinical notes whether a registrar was contacted a...

7. [2024] NZEmpC 231Aurecon New Zealand Limited v Dowlut [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...evidence that Aurecon had acted against her for a prohibited health and safety reason under s 103(1)(j)(i) of the Act. Nor had it contravened s 92 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (the HSW Act), thus giving rise to a claim under 10 At [110]–[111]. 11 At [111]. 12 At [113]. 13 At [118]. 14 At [116], [119], and [121]. 15 At [120]. s 103(1)(j)(ii), by continuing with the disciplinary process. This claim was described as misconceived in law and unsuppor...

8. [2025] NZREADT 16 – DQ & KU v CAC 2204 & Rule (20 May 2025) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...each licensee of rr 5.1 and 10.7 as more than minor or technical. It was a serious departure from the acceptable standards of a reasonably competent licensee. [56] The parties are referred to the provisions concerning compensation claims at s 110(4)–(6) of the Act.16 The purchasers bear the onus of proving they “suffered loss by reason of the [licensees’] unsatisfactory conduct” (subsection 4(b)). Directions 1. The penalty orders and compensation will be heard and de...

9. [2025] NZEmpC 2 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...with NZBORA.14 12 GF v Comptroller, New Zealand Customs Service [2023] NZEmpC 101, [2023] ERNZ 409 at [170]; and Four Aviation Security Service Employees v Minister of COVID-19 Response [2021] NZHC 3012, [2022] 2 NZLR 26, [2021] ERNZ 1025 at [110]. 13 GF v Minister of COVID-19 Response [2021] NZHC 2526, [2022] 2 NZLR 1, [2021] ERNZ 817; Four Aviation Security Service Employees v Minister of COVID-19 Response, above n 12; Four Midwives v Minister for COVID-19 Response [2021] NZH...

10. [2024] NZREADT 41 – CAC 2103 v Jones Lang Laselle Ltd (29 October 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

    ...72(b) of the Act and find JLL guilty of unsatisfactory conduct under s 72 of the Act. PENALTY JURISDICTION AND PRINCIPLES [28] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to impose penalty orders if unsatisfactory conduct is proven is set out in the Act: 110 Determination of charges and orders that may be made if charge proved ... (4) If the Disciplinary Tribunal, after hearing any charge against a licensee, is satisfied that, although not guilty of misconduct, he or she has engaged in unsat...