Search Results

1. Letter-to-the-profession-Legal-Aid-outcomes-of-Budget-2022.pdf [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...criminal legal aid from 1 July 2022 Criminal Provider Approval Level (PAL) Other ($/hour) Level of experience ($/hour) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 PAL 1 - 103 108 119 PAL 2 - 108 134 139 PAL 3 - 130 139 150 PAL 4 - 146 161 178 Court of Appeal/Supreme Court - 146 161 178 Supervised Providers 103 - - - Table 2: hourly rates for civil and family legal aid from 1 July 2022 Proceedings category Other ($/hour) Level of experience ($/hour) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 FC1 (Ot...

2. OIA-120344.pdf [pdf, 778 KB]

   ...lawyers Current position title Current remuneration band Assistant Office Public Defender J10 Deputy Director Legal J11 Deputy Senior Duty Lawyer Supervisor PDS7 Duty Lawyer Supervisor PDS6 Intermediate Lawyer (PAL2) PDS4 Junior Lawyer (Appeals) PDS2 Junior Lawyer (PAL1) PDS3 Lawyer (PAL1) PDS3 Lawyer (PAL2) PDS3 Legal Team Manager J08 Legal Team Manager (PAL2) J08 Legal Team Manager (PAL3) J09 National Public Defender J11 Office Public Defender J10 PDS Lawyer (...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 24 Tian v Hollywood Bakery (Holdings) Ltd [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...by the defendant to reach agreement as to costs with the plaintiff but that such attempts have been unsuccessful. [2] The submissions of Mr Liu for the defendant, in support of the application for costs, refer to the three well known Court of Appeal decisions, Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee1, Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd2 and Health Waikato Ltd v 1 [2001] ERNZ 305 (CA). Elmsly3. I accept that the appropriat...

4. Brankin v CAC 10027 [2011] NZREADT 33 [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...evidence was therefore inadmissible. Mr McCall submitted further that Ms Smith’s taping of private communications constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He referred the Tribunal to the Court of Appeal decision of R v A [1994] NZLR 429. In that decision the Court of Appeal said that the appropriate enquiry to determine whether the evidence ought to be admitted was to weigh all the relevant public interest considerations in the applicat...

5. Wang v Registrar of the REAA [2015] NZREADT 52 [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...requirements in accordance with the practice rules, had any discretion under s.54 or, rather, was required to cancel the applicant’s licence. Grounds Relied on by the Applicant [7] It is submitted for the Authority that the applicant’s grounds of appeal are not immediately clear, and that the application does not identify any error of fact or law in the Registrar’s decision. [8] It is not disputed by the applicant that he failed to complete the continuing education required b...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 71 Gazeley v Oceania Group NZ Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...an application to the Court for stay of execution of the Authority’s awards pending the outcome of the challenge; and e) substantive challenge heard in the Court. [3] Both counsel have referred in their submissions to the relevant Court of Appeal decisions which bind this Court when it exercises its jurisdiction to award costs pursuant to the provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). 2 The discretion is wide. However, it is generally accepted that costs will...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 10 Graeme’s Service Centre v Stalker [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...Ltd where it was said that: In applications of this kind it is necessary to weigh all of the factors in the balance between the right of a successful litigant to have the fruits of a judgment and the need to preserve the position in case the appeal is successful. Often it is possible to secure an intermediate position by conditions or undertakings and each case must be determined on its own circumstances. [16] This Court has often been assisted by considering such factors as:...

8. CAC 20004 v Mr G [2014] NZREADT 76 [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...persons involved in proceedings. [31] We considered the principles relevant to applications under s.108 in An Agent v Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 10028) [2011] NZREADT 02. There we held that we had the power to make non-publication orders on appeals from decisions of Complaints Assessment Committees and we set out the principles to consider when determining whether to make such orders. Relevantly, we relied on Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd where Her Honour Elias CJ said at...

9. FT v NSC LCRO 259 / 2010 (21 October 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...reason is simply as provided in the preceding paragraph – namely that I did not consider there was any strength in his application. It is difficult to see what further reason need be provided. [13] UQ has subsequently referred me to a Court of Appeal decision (Taylor v The Queen [2010] NZCA 628) where the Court applied earlier authorities that the giving of earlier adverse rulings, even adverse findings of credibility, will only “in the rarest of circumstances” (Muir v Commiss...

10. Phon v Waitakere City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 24 [pdf, 78 KB]

    ...opposition, as for the purposes of the removal application I should accept their amended pleadings as correct. In Procedural order 7 dated 20 August 2010 I granted the Council and Mr Kaill’s applications for removal. The claimants filed an appeal against that order which was heard before Ellis J on 8 February 2011. By decision dated 15 February 2001 she dismissed the appeal having concluded there was no arguable cause of action against the removed parties. In reaching th...