14837 items matching your search terms
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2011-100-000049 [2013] NZWHT AUCKLAND 21 BETWEEN GEORGE-HUCH FIFITAILA KORIA AND ELIZABETH SISAVAI’I LAVA Claimants AND STEPHEN DAVID JOHNSON First Respondent (Removed) AND ROB WOODGER LIMITED (Struck off) Second Respondent (Removed) AND ROBERT CHARLES WOODGER Third Respondent AND NICHOLAS PETER SIMMONS Fourth Respondent (Removed) AND MARK HARDY Fifth Respondent AND TAYLOR FASCIA (AUC
...when she met with Court staff on 11 November 2016. She argues this caused the delay in filing the application. 4 Henare v Māori Trustee – Parengarenga 3G [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 1 (2012 APPEAL 1). 5 Ibid. 6 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 43(5). 162 Taitokerau MB 158 [13] The Court file shows that minutes from the final hearing were not distributed until 18 November 2016. There is nothing to suggest that Mrs...
..."... not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant." 6. The Court of Appeal has discussed the question of justification on several occasions.[2] Broadly, the Court's approach requires consideration of three questions: 6.1 What objective is Parliament endeavouring to achieve by the provision limiting the ri...
...otherwise. Section 21 protects against activities constituting a “search or seizure” that are “unreasonable” in the circumstances. A request for information or documents constitutes a search for the purposes of s 21. 1 7. The Court of Appeal stated that the main aim of s 21 is to protect privacy interests 2: It is only where a person's reasonable expectations of privacy have been breached that a personal remedy under the Bill of Rights ... is available. The reasonable...
...options other than prosecution in attempting to get a person to comply with a community-based sentence or instruction, and when that person has in fact breached or failed to comply with that sentence or instruction. b. Although there is no right to appeal, the Department must issue two written warning notices before they can instruct the Ministry to withhold the benefit and an affected beneficiary may bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the Department’s decisions. 19....
...information which identifies either the Complainant or the Adviser will be removed, and the decision will be published in that form. That direction will reserve the right for any party to apply for a different order in a particular case. [19] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538, 546 per Cooke P said in relation to the question of name suppression: “The starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings and the r...
...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [8] Mr XX attended a review hearing in [City] on 25 May 20...
...specific, contained definition minimally impairs the right or freedom no more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the objective of protecting Māori land from acquisition. 15. Finally, in New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal considered that ’[t]he duty of the Crown is not merely passive but extends to active protection of Māori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent.’ 6 The Bill’s objectives reinforce this principle...
...of Rights Act. Jeff Orr Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel Stuart Beresford Acting Manager, Bill of Rights/Human Rights Public Law Footnotes 1 In applying section 5, we have had regard to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Transport (MOT) v Noort [1993] 3 NZLR 260; Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9; and Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] 2 NZLR 754. 2 Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Uni...
...that bans have effect for a period of 5 years starting on and from the date of the conviction, failure or matter, as the case may be, for which the ban is imposed. If a ban is issued concurrent with a fine, the effect may be severe. 7. The Court of Appeal in Puli'uvea v Removal Review Authority held that the right not to be subjected to disproportionately severe treatment under section 9 of the Bill of Rights Act is not triggered unless the treatment is "so excessive as to outr...