Search Results

1. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v CAL2012-E000627 [2013] NZCOP 9 [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...downloaders using specialised P2P software. [46] In this particular case, the specialised P2P software used by the Respondent was a BitTorrent “client” known as “uTorrent”. In Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] H.C.A. 16, three judges of the High Court of Australia3 noted that a user of the BitTorrent system who downloads a work (in that case it was a film) will automatically make the work available online on the user’s computer for downloading by other BitTorrent use...

2. 2009-10 to 2011-12 Ministry of Justice statement of intent [pdf, 528 KB]

   ...Ministry recognises the importance of the constitutional independence of judicial decision making, and works with the judiciary to ensure this independence is preserved and maintained. Some staff exercise judicial functions under the supervision of judges (for example, exercising Registrars’ powers in relation to interlocutory applications). However, the same staff, as part of their responsibilities as Ministry employees, may also perform tasks related to the functions of the executiv...

3. Baigent v ACC interim [2014] NZACA 15 [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...pricing Mr Miller used, because ACC had subjected Mr Baigent to dreadful hardship by failing to provide the registered nursing care at the time he needed it, to the detriment of his health. Mr Miller relied upon the explanation of Campbell given by Judge Ongley in Chittock v ACC,3 and in particular, his comment at paragraph [14] of the decision where he said “…it is clear from Campbell that the cushioning principle does not operate to reduce the contribution for attendant care be...

4. Adams v ACC [2015] NZACA 3 [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...payments in March 1985. The Corporation declined to commute his ERC on 9 April 1985. A review was dismissed on 23 January 1986. He had been represented by counsel at the review. [16] An appeal to the Authority (Decision No. 179/86) was allowed by Judge Middleton on 11 December 1986 (with addenda to the decision on 26 January and 5 February 1987). Mr Adams was represented by counsel. It was noted that an earlier review had fixed his relevant earnings at $209.62. Commutation of 30...

5. [2017] NZEnvC 212 T Barrett v Thames Coromandel District Council [pdf, 5.8 MB]

   ...[2017] NZEnvC 2. (':l. of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Act TREVOR BARRETT (ENV-2016-AKL-092) Appellant THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge JA Smith, sitting alone pursuant to s 279 of the Act, on the papers AN Green and DA Riley for Thames-Coromandel District Council T Barrett for himself 21 December 2017 FINAL DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT A: The Council's p...

6. LCRO 49/2016 QG v WW (8 May 2018) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...hoped would satisfy the Court that his medical condition was under control, so he could resume care of and contact with the twins. [34] The order varying the Parenting Orders was discharged by consent on 18 February 2015. The Family Court Judge confirmed there was still a live application for a protection order and recorded at [2] of the Direction discharging the order: That order was made on a without notice basis. Since then Mr [QG] has engaged with his counsel and has sought...

7. E55 Heather Kirkham - EIC - the Crown [pdf, 694 KB]

   ...involvement in reporting and following the America’s Cup. My relevant summarised experience and qualifications are as follows: a. Diploma of Management (5yrs part-time)– Auckland Technical Institute b. ISAF/World Sailing – International Judge (20 years) International. Umpire (10 years), International Jury member at many World Championships. c. Competitive sailor competing at international regattas and world championships 1973-1985 in international dinghy and keelboats (in sho...

8. Dotcom v Crown Law Office (Inherent Powers) [2018] NZHRRT 36 [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...NZLR 697 at 701 (Wylie J). [40] It is necessary in this context to distinguish between “inherent jurisdiction” and “inherent power”. The difference was explained by Robertson J in Watson v Clarke [1990] 1 NZLR 715 at 720: The learned Judge [Wylie J in DSW v Stewart] made the important distinction between "inherent power" and "inherent jurisdiction". The latter connotes an original and universal jurisdiction not derived from any other source, whereas the...

9. Legal Aid Audit Report 2017-2018 [pdf, 367 KB]

   ...contained in the practice standards and contract for services. “The file is not contained in a folder or bound in any way. It is just a stack of papers.” “Relevant documents are missing, such as section 38 reports, sentencing submissions and judge’s sentencing notes.” “No idea what occurred finally for this client – whether there was a trial or not, whether he was found guilty or pleaded guilty and what the end result was.” Theme three: Client reporting and comm...

10. [2020] NZIACDT 44 - Registrar v Yoon (8 October 2020) [pdf, 259 KB]

    ...matters for his clients. [19] The advocate contended that the human rights of the couple had been breached by the findings made by the agency concerning the client’s health, character, marriage and the timing of the decision. A High Court Judge had rejected or totally ignored the affidavits presented by the couple’s lawyer, and the Ombudsman had refused to intervene. Immigration New Zealand had acted corruptly to decline the client’s application and then used that as a to...