Search Results

1. Proactive-release-of-political-donations-consultation-materials-FINAL.pdf [pdf, 12 MB]

   Proa cti ve R ele as e Ministry of Justice Proactive release of material related to submissions on proposed changes to political donation rules Date of issue: 20 January 2023 Some information has been withheld on the basis that it would not, if requested under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), be released. Where that is the case, the relevant section of the OIA has been noted and no public interest has been identified that would outweigh the reasons for withholding it.

2. ENV-2016-AKL-000196 Yang & Others v Auckland Council [pdf, 7.7 MB]

   Before the Environment Court In the matter of And In the matter of And In the matter of Between And ENV-2016-AKl the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) an appeal under s 156(1) of the LGATPA against a decision of the Auckland Council on a recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (Hearings Panel) on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Unitary Plan) Proposed Plan

3. AU v Accident Compensation Corporation (Impairment Assessment) [2023] NZACC 182 [pdf, 419 KB]

   NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME AND OCCUPATION OF APPELLANT PROHIBITED BY S 160 OF THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 SEE Minute 19 March 2024 at end of judgment IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 182 ACR 257/21 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN AU Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 10 May 2023

4. Green v EIT [2020] NZHRRT 24 [pdf, 985 KB]

   1 (1) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF BOTH PLAINTIFFS (2) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF FIVE OTHER INDIVIDUALS (3) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION (4) ORDER PREVENTING SEARCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FILE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR OF THE CHAIRPERSON IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHRRT 24 I TE TARAIP

5. Case studies from evaluation of court-referred restorative justice pilot [pdf, 791 KB]

   ...he looked at his son and tears came to his eyes. ‘I try not to show them.’ As a boy, Tane said he had been abused, and his grandmother subsequently brought him up. He had done things wrong, but nothing like this. That was why he was ‘extra protective’ of his children. ‘I’ve never done anything wrong to them and have done the best I can for them.’ Thirdly, the conference gave them another way of dealing with the situation they found themselves in. Leading up to it, there...

6. DV, RL, YS and TB v AR LCRO 316/2013 [pdf, 228 KB]

   DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] The applicants have applied for a review of a decision of the [City] Standards Committee [X] in which the Committee determined to take no further action in respect to their complaints against Mr AW. Background [2] In November 2005, Mr AW received instructions to act for eight shareholders of the DEF Ltd. [3] DEF Ltd, a company formally register

7. Waitangi Tribunal theme C - Customary land tenure [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...extinguished through sale to the Crown. Maori title to the soil and the sovereignty of New Zealand had in fact already been given a qualified recognition in 1835 when the Colonial Office acknowledged the Declaration of Independence and assured Maori the protection of the British Crown, so far as was consistent with the rights of others. The problem facing the Crown from that time on was to establish just what constituted customary Maori tenure.1 Fifty years later the problem remained: ‘Maori...

8. CAC 20007 v Marshall [2013] NZREADT 101 [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...us. [22] On 27 March 2013 the company terminated the defendant’s employment. [23] On 28 March 2013 the defendant met Mr Niles at the Timaru office and returned the keys for the company car and for the four Property Brokers offices under his care. He asked how much money Mr Niles thought was involved and was advised that, at that point, enquiries indicated the defendant owed the company between $5,000 and $6,000. It remains to be seen if the company is insured for the loss. The d...

9. PD v SC LCRO 75/2015 (30 November 2015) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...issues arising from the Committee’s decision to commence an own motion inquiry. Background [2] The Complaints Service resolved, after receiving a confidential report under 2.8 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules), to initiate an own motion inquiry into matters involving Mr PD. [3] On the 13 March 2015, the Complaints Service advised Mr PD that: (a) A Standards Committee had concluded that it had jurisdiction to inquire...

10. LCRO 55/2020 MY v KA (5 October 2020) [pdf, 182 KB]

    ...year to respond to Mr KA’s request to correct the spelling of his wife’s name. It held that this was inconsistent with his obligation to act in a timely manner, pursuant to r 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). It said the following: The Committee had …sought to resolve the issue in its correspondence with Mr MY, as there was a very simple remedy for Mr MY to implement. In the Committee’s view Mr MY failed to re...