Search Results

1. Advice on consistency of Bills with the Bill of Rights Act

   The Ministry of Justice, and the Crown Law Office in the case of Bills developed by the Ministry of Justice, advise the Attorney-General on the consistency of all Bills with the Bill of Rights Act (with the exception of appropriation Bills, which are not scrutinised). The Attorney-General retains legal professional privilege in respect of unpublished advice written before January 2003, as well as unpublished advice written since January 2003 on Bills on which the Attorney-General has tabled a se

   Located in:

   1. Justice sector & policy >
   2. Constitutional issues & human rights >
   3. The Bill of Rights Act

2. Proactive-release-Review-of-the-Operation-and-Performance-of-the-Public-Defence-Service-2021.pdf [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...report are easily fixed; some will require long term evolution, investment and potentially, political consideration. It is crucially important that PDS, the Ministry of Justice, the Secretary, the Legal Services Commissioner, and the Crown generally carefully consider what exactly PDS is to do and to be. That is a policy question as much as a question of strategy and operations, but the answer to that question – the “Why” – will determine to a large extent what happens next....

3. [2013] NZEmpC 66 Hall v Westpac NZ Ltd [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...I perceive to contain remedies for the very type of behaviour which in other circumstances might give rise to exemplary damages. However, those will be issues which the applicant wishes to have for reconsideration. Conclusions [21] I have carefully considered the submissions of counsel in the context of the circumstances of this case. I have also considered the well reasoned determination of the member of the Authority in declining removal. I find that I am in agreement with...

4. Legal Complaints Review Officer v Hong [2015] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...High Court Judge16 [32] A distinguishing feature between Mr Hong and Mr Eichelbaum is the Tribunal’s confidence that the behaviour was unlikely to be repeated by the latter practitioner. This issue weighed strongly in the assessment of public protection, and “specific deterrence” principles, which were addressed in the Tribunal’s decision. . Thus, concern as to insight is a common factor in the two decisions. 17 “….. we discussed general and specific deterrence. Whi...

5. Sionepulu v Downer and Police (Costs) [2012] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...Sionepulu the responsibility for bringing and prosecuting these misconceived and baseless proceedings. We take into account also the fact that Ms Sionepulu is the sole breadwinner of the family. It is safe to assume that she also carries the burden of caring for her child. Many of the complaints made by the defendants attach to Mr Butler, not to Ms Sionepulu. Yet it is she who will be legally liable to pay any costs award. She and her young child will bear the burden of Mr Butler’s...

6. Wandsworth v Ddinbych & Keith LCRO 149 & 150 / 2009 (5 March 2010) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...Standards Committee 1 upheld complaints against two practitioners, Mr Keith (P1) and Mr Ddinbych (P2). [2] The Committee found P1 had wrongfully terminated the retainer with the Applicant in breach of Rule 4.2 of the Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules, and that this constituted unsatisfactory conduct. The Committee determined that the finding of unsatisfactory conduct recorded against his professional file, and an apology, were a sufficient penalty. It declined to consi...

7. BORA Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill [pdf, 361 KB]

   ...range of situations in which a vehicle must be seized and impounded. Given that the person whose vehicle has been impounded or driver licence has been suspended may subsequently be prosecuted for an offence, we have considered whether the right to protection from double jeopardy, affirmed in s 26(2) of the Bill of Rights Act, is engaged. • We note that the former Attorney General’s s 7 report on the Act considered whether those provisions for mandatory vehicle impoundment and mand...

8. [2016] NZEmpC 169 Robinson v Gillon & Maher Plumbing Ltd [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial security may, in effect, prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. An order having that effect should only be made after careful consideration and in a case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the court’s for a genuine plaintiff is not likely to be denied. Of course, the interests of defendants must also be weighed. They must be pr...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 41 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial security may, in effect, prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. An order having that effect should be made only after careful consideration and in a case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the Courts for a genuine plaintiff is not lightly to be denied. Of course, the interest of defendants must also be weighed. They must be prote...

10. 2017 NZSSAA 066 (22 November 2017) [pdf, 119 KB]

    ...recoverable when it should have been non-recoverable. (b) The appellant was not on the correct main benefit and/or supplementary assistance and/or incorrect income tests were applied. (c) Incorrect application of assistance in relation to a childcare grant. [5] We determined on 31 March 2017 that the payments relating to childcare assistance are not within the scope of this appeal. [6] Paragraphs 16(d) and (e) of the submissions relate to whether debts arising from rent arrears...