Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v Kennelly [2022] NZLCDT 31 (1 September 2022) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...and questioning the value of an insincere apology. He queried whether an ordered apology might encroach on rights of freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The short answer to those submissions is that this is not an appeal or review of the LCRO decision. In any case, the order was lawful.5 [10] The letter comprises 12 paragraphs. It expresses Mr Kennelly’s internal conflict in being forced to apologise when he thinks that is unjust. He bolsters his pos...

2. NZBORA Advice COVID19 Public Health Response Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers Amendment Bill updated for publication.pdf [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...occurred without proof of mens rea. The accused is required to prove a defence (on the balance of probabilities), or disprove a presumption, to avoid liability. 62. Although infringement offences do not result in a criminal conviction, the Court of Appeal in Henderson v Director, Land Transport New Zealand held that the rights in sections 24 and 25 of the Bill of Rights Act apply to minor offences dealt with under the infringement notice regime.14 63. We note that infringement off...

3. LCRO 120/2021 SB v KR (3 August 2022) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...Committee and I have not found it necessary to make any further enquiry of him. Nature and scope of review [29] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:19 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...

4. Taipana - Āorangi Part Taonui Āhuatūranga Block 3A2 (2024) 486 Aotea MB 169-185 (486 AOT 169-185) [pdf, 688 KB]

   ...Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(a). 8 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(aa). 9 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(b). 10 Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] NZLR 87. 11 Whaanga – Anewa Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 45 (2013 APPEAL 45), at [38]. 12 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(c). This does not mean that a person needs to hold a proportionate amount of shares for the area of the proposed occupation order – see Bidois – Te Puna 154D3b2B (2008) Wa...

5. OIA-109743.pdf [pdf, 2.4 MB]

   ...use of electronic casebooks. Estimated completion: FY 2025/2026 11.2. Phase 2 – District Court Criminal, including Youth Court, and the remainder of District Court Civil. Estimated completion: FY 2026/2027 11.3. Phase 3 – High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, Coroners Court, Environment Court, and the Disputes Tribunal. Estimated completion: FY 2027/2028. 12. The estimated completion dates will be confirmed in the updated Implementation Business Case (refer upcoming decisio...

6. [2023] NZREADT 25 CAC 2102 v Hoogwerf (25 September 2023) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...v Ganesh [2018] NZREADT 19 at [115]; Complaints Assessment Committee 2108 v Rankin [2022] NZREADT 15 at [65] and [107]. 11 [45] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [46] Having regard to the privacy of the individuals involved, as well as the interests of the public in the transparency of the Tribunal and knowing of wrongdoing by licensees, it is appropriate to orde...

7. [2023] NZEmpC 99 Speed v Board of Trustees of Wellington Girls College [pdf, 254 KB]

   ...making retrospective orders that illustrated divergent results. For example, Mr Wass referred to D v The Police where an anonymisation order was made by the Supreme Court with retrospective effect.19 Mr McBride referred to W v R where the Court of Appeal doubted it could redact retrospectively a judgment that had previously been issued.20 Analysis [32] The starting point is the principle of open justice explained by the Supreme Court in Erceg, as being of constitutional impor...

8. Wilton TRI-2021-100-002 Procedural Order 26 [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...for “without substantial merit” is objective.14 In Dewes v IAG New Zealand, the CEIT determined the question to be “what ought the party and its advisors have known about the prospects of the argument in question being successful?”15 On appeal, the High Court accepted the CEIT’s approach to the issue.16 [32] In Trustees Executors Ltd v Wellington City Council, Simon France J found that the defendants had advanced a case without substantial merit.17 In considering whet...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 231Aurecon New Zealand Limited v Dowlut [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...defendant’s costs if the plaintiff’s proceedings do not succeed. [31] Then, the Court must have regard to the overall justice of the case and the respective interests of both parties. The balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal in McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd as follows:22 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for su...

10. [2025] NZREADT 22 - ZD & NK v Zareian (18 June 2025) [pdf, 264 KB]

    ...the proportion between themselves as to what each should pay is: Ms Liu $ 5,076.44 Mr Zareian $ 2,500.00 Ms Zareian $ 2,500.00 [69] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. 14 PUBLICATION [70] Having regard to the interests of the public, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision without identifying the complainants, but naming the licensees and the agency.30...