2844 items matching your search terms
YAN ZHANG v TELCO ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2019] NZEmpC 151 [23 October 2019] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2019] NZEmpC 151 EMPC 58/2019 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN YAN ZHANG Plaintiff AND TELCO ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 3, 4 and 5 September 2019 (heard
BIGSON GUMBEZE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI – MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN [2024] NZEmpC 133 [24 July 2024] ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS AS AT [10] OF THIS JUDGMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2024] NZEmpC 133 EMPC 256/2022 EMPC 425/2022 IN THE MATTER OF challenges to two determinations of the Employmen...
...within the AODT Court. Experience of the AODT Court for participants and their whānau is positive and substantially different from their previous court experiences. Participants and whānau describe the AODT Court as inclusive, caring and non-judgemental; court processes are perceived as fair, with clear and consistent sanctions when breaches occur. AOD testing and judicial monitoring are regarded as important to the success of participants’ recovery journey. Graduates experienc...
Proposals against incitement of hatred and discrimination Summary of submissions Although all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this document, the Ministry of Justice disclaims any and all responsibility for any inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other kind of inadequacy, deficiency, or flaw in, or in relation to, the information; and fully excludes any and all liability of any kind to any person or entity that chooses to
...2014 75 Taitokerau MB 132 28 August 2014 85 Taitokerau MB 142 19 September 2014 87 Taitokerau MB 178-191 (Heard at Whangarei) Counsel: Christine Reuhman, for the Māori Trustee Peter Jones, for the Omapere Rangihamama Trustees Judgment: 1 October 2014 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG Copies to: Christine Reuhman, Corporate Lawyer Te Tumu Paeroa, christine.reuhman@tetumupaeroa.co.nz Peter Jones, P W Jones Lawyer...
...appeal was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Kacem v Bashir [2011] 2 NZLR 1 at [32] where the Court (per Tipping J) stated: “... the important point arising from Austin, Nichols is that those exercising general rights of appeal are entitled to judgment in accordance with the opinion of the appellate Court, even where that opinion involves an assessment of fact and degree and entails a value judgment. In this context a general appeal is to be distinguished from an appeal against a dec...
...sentenced of an offence.[16] 37. The United States Supreme Court in United States v Ursery[17] held that in rem civil forfeitures are neither "punishment" nor criminal proceedings for the purposes of double jeopardy. 38. We note also the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Daniels v Thompson[18] held that: "In our view it would be erroneous to treat the word "punished" in section 26(2) as embracing punishment outside the ambit of the criminal process and its ass...
...1 SECTION 27 AHU WHENUA TRUST Applicants Hearing: 9 February 2018, 179 Waiariki MB 57 1 May 2018, 186 Waiariki MB 232-238 3 July 2018, 193 Waiariki MB 61-80 (Heard at Opotiki) Appearances: Te U Nganeko for Applicants Judgment: 23 August 2018 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C T COXHEAD 194 Waiariki MB 269 Tēnā koutou i ō tātou aituā maha e ngapu nei te whenua i tō rātou hinganga. Hēoi anō, e tāea te aha atu i te tangi, i te maumah...
...REWITA, MINA POKINO, POLLY STIRLING, WIKI REWITA AND TITHUIA REWITA AS TRUSTEES OF OPAPE 1A1B TRUST Respondents Hearings: 147 Waiariki MB 183-189 dated 6 September 2016 162 Waiariki MB 193-202 dated 2 May 2017 (Heard at Opotiki) Judgment: 11 September 2017 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C T COXHEAD Copies to: C Bidois East Brewster PO Box 1742 Rotorua 3040 curtis.bidois@eastbrewster.co.nz mailto:curtis.bido...
...The meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose. (2) The matters that may be considered in ascertaining the meaning of an enactment include the indications provided in the enactment. … [39] In its judgment in Commerce Commission v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd, the Supreme Court held that:4 It is necessary to bear in mind that s 5 of the Interpretation Act 1999 makes text and purpose the key drivers of statutory interpretation. Th...