Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 219 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...to LSG. During the hearing of ARC 19/11, the defendant produced evidence which Mr Pollak submitted showed that most of the transferring employees from Pacific to LSG had their wages, outstanding leave and other entitlements inflated. LSG’s Human Resources Manager, Marie Park, gave evidence at the hearing before the Employment Court in ARC 19/11 and has provided affidavits in support of the present application by LSG. [10] Mr Pollak submitted that Mr Matsuoka is claiming, in ter...

2. Rafiq v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 83 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2013] NZHRRT 9 Reference No. HRRT 037/2011, 038/2011 & 039/2011 UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 1993 BETWEEN RAZDAN RAFIQ PLAINTIFF AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT DEFENDANT AT WELLINGTON BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Dr SJ Hickey, Member Dr AD Trlin, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr R Rafiq in person (no appearance) Mr S Cohen-Ronen for Defendant...

3. [2021] NZEmpC 59 Humphrey v Canterbury District Health Board [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...dismissed) is that the option identified in the Toogood report (namely the DHB bringing in professional support and assistance to try to rebuild the damaged relationships) has yet to be explored. The view expressed by a member of the DHB’s Human Resources team, that the relationship breakdown is too far gone, is based on a reading of the affidavit evidence filed by a number of colleagues who did not have the opportunity to reflect on the Toogood report’s findings; and which appe...

4. Independent review of intelligence and security - call for submissions [pdf, 951 KB]

   ...and balances contained in the Act to help ensure the NZSIS acts appropriately. For example:  The NZSIS Act sets out principles underpinning the NZSIS’s performance of its functions. These include acting in accordance with New Zealand law and human rights standards, independently and impartially, and with integrity and professionalism.  The Director of NZSIS must take all reasonable steps to ensure NZSIS only undertakes activities relevant to the performance of its functions, a...

5. COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...JTI-MacDonald [2007] 2 SCR 610 at [42]–[45]. Section 19 - Freedom from discrimination 51. We note that there is scope for orders under this Bill to have disproportionate impacts on certain groups protected from discrimination under s 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 (for example, the elderly, or people in one person households).14 52. We consider that the power to make orders that might apply differently to different groups is clearly justifiable on public health grounds; howeve...

6. Director of Proceedings v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [2022] NZHRRT 5 [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...papers DATE OF DECISION: 8 February 2022 (REDACTED) DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 1 [This decision is to be cited as Director of Proceedings v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [2022] NZHRRT 5. Note publication restrictions.] IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2022] NZHRRT 5 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA 2 [1] These proceedings under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 were filed on 23 November 2021. [2] Prior to the filing of the proceedings the part...

7. [2023] NZIACDT 22 - OT v Ramos (27 June 2023) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...her misconduct amounted to a short and insufficient Ministerial request and an out-of-time paper application duly rejected by Immigration NZ. [28] It is submitted that Ms Ramos’ misconduct was not a mistake in the nature of an oversight or human error, as described by Mr Moses, counsel for Ms Ramos. The Tribunal has determined that a mistake may be attributable to excusable human error in the event that it is a mistake that a “competent, reasonable, prudent, diligent practiti...

8. Director of Proceedings v Health New Zealand [2025] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 566 KB]

   ...defendant DATE OF HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 6 March 2025 (REDACTED) DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 1 This decision is to be cited as Director of Proceedings v Health New Zealand [2025] NZHRRT 10. Note publication restrictions. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2025] NZHRRT 10 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA 2 [1] These proceedings under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 were filed on 2 December 2024. Prior to the filing of the proceedings t...

9. Director of Proceedings v Health New Zealand [2025] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 495 KB]

   ...Act 1994 were filed on 30 October 2024. Prior to the filing of the proceedings the parties resolved all 1 This decision is to be cited as Director of Proceedings v Health New Zealand [2025] NZHRRT 1. Note publication restrictions. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2025] NZHRRT 1 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA 2 matters in issue and the Tribunal is asked to make a consent declaration. The parties have filed: [1.1] A statement of claim dated 30 October 2024. [1.2] A...

10. GR-to-the-LC-report-Third-Review-of-the-Evidence-Act-2006_Final.pdf [pdf, 487 KB]

    ...Government response raises no direct population implication concerns, however over-representation of Māori in our criminal justice system, both as victims and perpetrators, will be a key consideration in development of any future policy proposals. Human Rights 35 Approval of the attached Government response has no human rights implications, although human rights considerations will be integral to the development of policy proposals and the drafting of any legislative amendments. Use...