Search Results

1. BORA Patents Bill [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...1990. Melanie Webb Manager, Ministerial Advice Office of Legal Counsel Stuart Beresford Acting Manager Human Rights/Bill of Rights Team 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 RJR MacDonald v Attorney-General of Canada (...

2. Saini v Dua [2016] NZIACDT 61 (26 September 2016) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...19 December 2012, Mr Dua lodged a section 61 request for a partnership work visa; Immigration New Zealand refused the request on 31 January 2013. The following day, Mr Dua told the complainant because his visa had expired and he had no rights of appeal, he should leave New Zealand. On 11 and 15 February 2013, the complainant paid Mr Dua an additional $750 for a further section 61 request; a written agreement for those services had been sent to the complainant. [8.5] The complainant...

3. Hona - Estate of Hiriweteri Toby [2017] Chief Judge's MB 428 (2017 CJ 428) [pdf, 354 KB]

   ...evidence presented, or in the interpretation of the law, and it is necessary in the interests of justice to 1 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2017 Chief Judge’s MB 437 correct its record. For this reason, s 45 applications must be accompanied by proof of the flaw identified, either through the production of evidence not available or not known of at the tim...

4. BORA KiwiSaver Bill [pdf, 414 KB]

   ...Jeff Orr Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel Margaret Dugdale Policy Manager Bill of Rights/Human Rights Team Footnotes 1 In applying section 5, the Ministry of Justice has 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 and Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Oakes...

5. Complaints Assessment Committee 409 v Ganesh [2018] NZREADT 27 [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...penalty decision. He is also ordered to pay a fine of $5,000 to the Authority, within 20 working days of this decision. [47] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. __________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ___________________ Ms N Dangen Member...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 115 Auckland Council v KI Braines [pdf, 403 KB]

   ...Given the position now reached by the parties, the only remaining issue that I see outstanding in respect of Mr Braines' concerns in this light is what level of ongoing tenancy at the main house was envisaged. There was nothing in the abatement appeal order that identifies the issue of the use of the main house. Whether this was commented on in passing or not in 2013 is unclear at this stage. The agreement reached between the parties in 2018 was one simply recorded by the Court,...

7. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Zhang [2018] NZREADT 30 [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...hearing is required, a telephone conference will be arranged so that appropriate orders may be made as to filing submissions. [51] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. __________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson __________________ Mr G Denley Member ________...

8. BORA Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...rationally connected with the objective, impair freedom of expression no more than is reasonably necessary, and are in due proportion to the importance of the objective. The limits are small and tightly constrained, and an individual can, under cl 30, appeal a decision to not register a name to the Family Court within 28 working days after the decision was made and the affected party notified. 15. We therefore conclude that the limits on what a person’s name can be are justified for t...

9. [2017] NZEmpC 98 Farmer Motor Group Ltd v McKenzie [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...Kiely’s Best Practice Guide, payment in lieu of notice has been accepted as sometimes constituting notice, but not if the employee is engaged under a trial period. 8 Kiely refers to Coca Cola Amatil v Kaczorowski, but while the Court of Appeal in that case recognised that an employer might have a customary practice in 6 Modern Transport Engineers (2002) Ltd v Phillips [2016] NZEmpC 68. 7 Henderson v The Flooring Centre Ltd...

10. Brown v TPL 4 Limited - Motatau 1B5B5 (2017) 158 Taitokerau MB 88 (158 TTK 88) [pdf, 208 KB]

    ...relationship with the trustees, and the means of the trust (which at present is not known), are relevant 10 Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64). 158 Taitokerau MB 99 factors for them to consider. I encourage the parties to discuss this issue to see if it can be resolved by agreement. If it cannot, and costs are sought, the parties will have to file submiss...