Search Results

1. Appendix One to Cabinet Paper Reforming the Privacy Act 1993 [pdf, 378 KB]

   Appendix One: Less substantive recommendations Part A: Recommendations to be implemented Law Commission recommendations # Recommendation Discussion and impacts 3 The Privacy Act should have a purpose section, with specific clauses as drafted by the Law Commission Agree the new Act should have a new purpose section. Final wording (agreed during drafting) will build upon the Law Commission’s suggestions and focus on balancing privacy interests with important social and busi

2. The needs of Pacific peoples when they are victims of crime [pdf, 647 KB]

   The needs of Pacific Peoples when they are victims of crime Prepared for the Ministry of Justice Dr ‘Ana Hau‘alofa‘ia Koloto Koloto & Associates Limited ii First published in May 2003 by the Ministry of Justice PO Box 180 Wellington New Zealand © Crown Copyright ISBN 0-478-20179-6 iii Foreword It is important that the perspectives and needs of Pacific peoples are taken into account when developing policies and support services for victims of crime. To this end, the M

3. ENV-2016-AKL-000207 Mason v Auckland Council [pdf, 4.8 MB]

   ...and service of any further Court documents relating to the appeal: (a) Service of the Notice of Appeal (i) A waiver of the usual requirement in clause 14(5) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, regulation 7( 1 )( c) and Form 7 of the Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Regulations 2003 (Regulations) to serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on every person who made a submission on the provision or matter to which the appeal relates, and the related requirement in regulation 26 and For...

4. LCRO 8/2020 PA v ZN (21 December 2022) [pdf, 306 KB]

   ...met Mr PA, he spoke to Mr PA at length about his then Family Court matters. Mr PA gave regular advice about that. (c) Relationship property litigation resulted in the Family Court, in early 2014, ordering unequal division in favour of Mr ZN’s former wife. (d) Mr PA suggested that Mr ZN appeal the decision. Mr PA asked Mr ZN to confirm that he would not hold Mr PA responsible for any negative outcome, as the work was outside Mr PA’s normal field of expertise. (e) Mr PA then w...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 123 CSN v Royal District Nursing Service NZ Ltd [pdf, 376 KB]

   ...(a) Was CSN a care and support worker under the Vaccinations Order? 1 Section 4 and sch 2. (b) Did the employment relationship between the parties continue from 23 November 2021 to 27 April 2022? The framework for the work performed by CSN [9] DSO has cover under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 as a result of the accident he suffered in 2010. [10] Since his care and support needs are significant and complex, he has comprehensive entitlements under that Act.

6. [2021] NZACC 14 - Folland v ACC (12 January 2021) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...and Production Clerk. [15] In a review decision dated 27 April 2015 that decision was quashed because the Reviewer determined the IRP had been unlawful. The decision itself was then revoked by the respondent. [16] In March 2016 the appellant requested the respondent to assist him with funding to start up his own computer business. [17] In October 2017, having obtained a complex medical specialist report from Dr Xiong, the respondent recommenced the vocational independence pro...

7. [2022] NZCAA 01 (28 February 2022) [pdf, 338 KB]

   ...company. [2] The dispute in the appeal is: [2.1] The Appellant says the royalty payments are separate from the value of the goods the Appellant imports from the parent company, the royalties relate to other services and intangibles such as information; whereas [2.2] Customs say the correct value of the goods includes the royalty payments. Effectively, that the nominated price of the goods between the Appellant as buyer and the parent company understates the true value. The roya...

8. Regulatory Impact Statement Parliamentary privilege bill [pdf, 302 KB]

   1 Regulatory Impact Statement  Parliamentary Privilege Bill  Agency Disclosure Statement  1. This Regulatory Impact Statement has been prepared by the Ministry of Justice.  It analyses options  for  addressing  some  concerns  about  parliamentary  privilege  raised  by  Parliament’s  Privileges  Committee  (Question  of  privilege  concerning  the  defamation  action Attorney‐General  and Gow  v  Leigh, June 2013).  2. O

9. Short v Stowers - Te Tumu Kaituna 14 Block [2020] Māori Appellate Court MB 141 (2020 APPEAL 141) [pdf, 274 KB]

   2020 Māori Appellate Court MB 141 I TE KOOTI PĪRA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE WAIARIKI In the Māori Appellate Court of New Zealand Waiariki District A20180009254 APPEAL 2018/21 WĀHANGA Under Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Te Tumu Kaituna 14 block I WAENGA I A Between MALCOLM SHORT, ANARU BIDOIS, KEITA EMERY, UENUKU FAIRHALL, PIRIHIRA FENWICK, WALDO HOUIA AND EMILY ROTA AS TRUSTEES OF TUMU KAITUNA 14 TRU

10. Rapana v Anderson - Te Kōmiti Matua o te Haahi Rātana (2024) 492 Aotea MB 95 (492 AOT 95) [pdf, 335 KB]

    ...recognise either of them as the properly constituted Komiti Matua. (c) The making of a representation order will address the issues and provide clarity for everyone associated with Te Haahi. (d) The issue cannot be resolved out of Court, as previous requests from the applicant Komiti for mediation have not been agreed to by the respondent Komiti. (e) The representation order will apply until the next Hui Whakapūmau and thus is of limited purposes but of immediate relevance. N...