Search Results

1. Court-imposed fines: survey of Judges [pdf, 509 KB]

   Court-imposed fines: A survey of Judges Wendy Searle July 2003 ii First published in July 2003 by the Ministry of Justice PO Box 180 Wellington New Zealand www.justice.govt.nz © Crown Copyright ISBN 0-478-20177-x iii Foreword Fines are the most widely imposed penalty in the New Zealand courts. For many minor offences, and in particular traffic offences, a fine is the only available option. In 2001, 33% of all charges resulting in a conviction had a fine imposed as one of the s...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 115 Atkinson v Phoenix Commercial Cleaners Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...discretion to extend time are well established. 6 The reasons for the failure to file within time, the extent of the delay, prejudice and the merits of the proposed challenge are to be considered having regard to the overriding interests of justice. [5] The extent of delay in this case was 29 days. The reasons for the delay are set out in the applicant’s affidavit. She confirms that she was not in a position to pay privately for legal assistance and accordingly sought legal...

3. BORA Regulatory Reform Bill [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...Bill of Rights Act. The release of this advice should not be taken to indicate that the Attorney- General agrees with all aspects of it, nor does its release constitute a general waiver of legal professional privilege in respect of this or any other matter. Whilst care has been taken to ensure that this document is an accurate reproduction of the advice provided to the Attorney-General, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Crown Law Office accepts any liability for any errors or omission...

4. BORA Building Bill - Follow up [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...Bill of Rights Act. The release of this advice should not be taken to indicate that the Attorney-General agrees with all aspects of it, nor does its release constitute a general waiver of legal professional privilege in respect of this or any other matter. Whilst care has been taken to ensure that this document is an accurate reproduction of the advice provided to the Attorney-General, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Crown Law Office accepts any liability for any errors or omissio...

5. Chief Justice media statement 24 August 2021 [pdf, 687 KB]

   ...to attend court in person and instead to attend by remote viewing. See the Courts of New Zealand website for information on how to arrange this. If remote viewing is not available, please contact the registry concerned. Next statement The Chief Justice will issue a further statement following the Government’s next review of alert levels. Contact: Liz Kennedy, Senior Judicial Communications Advisor liz.kennedy@courts.govt.nz | 027 369 6701 https://www.courtsofnz....

6. SH v NS [2022] NZDT 102 (26 August 2022) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

7. LB v VB Ltd [2022] NZDT 123 (25 August 2022) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

8. BD v U Ltd [2022] NZDT 232 (10 November 2022) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

9. WC & SD v CT Ltd [2022] NZDT 198 (21 November 2022) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

10. MI v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 102 (10 March 2023) [pdf, 114 KB]

    ...decision of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised...