Search Results

1. BORA-Vet-advice_-SIGNED-with-coda-Firearms-Prohibition-Order-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-Consistency-to-NZBORA-15-February-2024-for-publication.pdf [pdf, 5 MB]

   ...searches cannot be justified under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. Human Rights Act 1993, s 21{f) . Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456 at (55] and [143] . • 7 39. However, applying the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Ngaronoa v Attorney-Genera/, we do not consider the Bill engages section 19. 24 Specifically, because: 39.1 While the Bill expands the category of people against to whom FPOs may be made gang members or associates, in particular...

2. MOJ0048.7_JUN21_WEB.pdf [pdf, 438 KB]

   ...covers: • charges filed against the defendant or young person • reasons for not laying charges • your role as a witness • when and where the hearings will take place • the outcome of any criminal proceedings, including any proceedings on appeal • a young person’s progress on a plan agreed at a family group conference. You can also ask for this information to be given to someone else who will then explain it to you. RIGHT 3: To make a victim impact statement You have...

3. [2024] NZIACDT 18 – KL v Lawlor (24 May 2024) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...texts from October 2022. [17] The Authority wrote to Mr Lawlor on 11 October 2023 setting out details of the complaint and seeking his explanation. There was no substantive reply from him. 1 The Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissed an appeal on 20 November 2023; CW (2021 Resident Visa) [2023] NZIPT 206763. 4 Complaint referred to Tribunal [18] On 23 November 2023, the Registrar referred the complaint against Mr Lawlor to the Tribunal alleging negligence, or altern...

4. LCRO 113/2024 TD v PW (25 September 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...of review is, as had been noted in a number of court decisions, “a very particular statutory process”.2 [15] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:3 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It invo...

5. Baker TRI-2023-100-006 Procedural Order 4 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...apportion liability between the respondent parties. It is not required to make “third party” type liability rulings. [41] The position regarding the longstop and contribution claims is currently before the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal dealt with the issue in Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Limited v Wellington City Council8, finding that a contribution claim is not caught by the Building Act longstop provisions. The Supreme Court has yet to deliver its judgment on t...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 224 Kongbang v Lotus Touch Ltd [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...Woodhouse “Strengthening enforcement of employment standards” (Ministry for Workplace Relations and Safety, 2015) at [47] and [119](15). can recover money rather than before they can take a case to the Authority. Further, the Court of Appeal has, in the context of this specific Cabinet paper, expressed significant reservations about relying on such documents.13 Therefore, the paper is also of limited use. Does the Court have jurisdiction to hear the claims against Mr J...

7. [2024] NZLVT 059 – Westphal v Auckland Council (18 November 2024) [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...terms and conditions as a bona fide seller might be expected to impose; and (b) no improvements had been made on the land. Value of improvements means the added value which at the date of valuation the improvements give to land. The Court of Appeal quoted from the High Court in Bushmere Trust v Gisborne District Council:3 … capital value and market value are not identical concepts. The High Court, however, did not say that capital value and market value were indistinguishable...

8. [2025] NZLCDT 21 Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Woodroffe (9 April 2025) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...during a radio broadcast, and spoke about her client in disrespectful terms; • and she failed to treat him with respect and courtesy when she threatened to sue him unless he retracted what he had told the Samoan Court. [2] Mrs Woodroffe has appealed our liability decision. Nonetheless, our task at this penalty hearing involves considering the gravity of the misconduct as we found it in our earlier decision, weighing it against comparable cases and adjusting for aggravating and...

9. Mahanga v Mahanga - Taiharuru 2C (2025) 286 Taitokerau MB 172 (286 TTK 172) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...application for a rehearing will not be allowed merely for the purposes of preparing omissions in the presentation of an earlier case or for reshaping that case.4 2 Henare v Māori Trustee – Parengarenga 3G [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 1 (2012 APPEAL 1) at [14]. 3 At [19]. 4 Henare v Māori Trustee, above n 2, at [20]. 286 Taitokerau MB 176 [16] Further, even where it is established that there has been a miscarriage of justice such that a rehearing is justified,...

10. [2025] NZEmpC 3 Singh v McKee [pdf, 210 KB]

    ...other purposes: (b) if copies of any documents have been made available by any party,— (i) those copies must be returned to that party within 28 clear days after the conclusion of the proceedings or after the conclusion of any related appeal, whichever is the later; and (ii) copies of any of those copies must not be retained by the party to whom those copies were made available: (c) the information contained in any document so disclosed but not used in evidence in the pro...