Search Results

1. Advice on consistency of Bills with the Bill of Rights Act

   The Ministry of Justice, and the Crown Law Office in the case of Bills developed by the Ministry of Justice, advise the Attorney-General on the consistency of all Bills with the Bill of Rights Act (with the exception of appropriation Bills, which are not scrutinised). The Attorney-General retains legal professional privilege in respect of unpublished advice written before January 2003, as well as unpublished advice written since January 2003 on Bills on which the Attorney-General has tabled a se...

   Located in:

   1. Justice sector & policy >
   2. Constitutional issues & human rights >
   3. The Bill of Rights Act

2. TE v Wellington Standards Committee LCRO 100/2010, 92/2011, 153/2012 (1 February 2013) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...its determination with regard to the conduct issues complained of by NT. The determination dated 2 March 2011 [10] The Standards Committee issued its determination concerning TE’s conduct on 22 March 2011. That determination addressed the matters raised by NT in her submissions dated 23 August 2010 which she had provided in response to the Notice 3 of Hearing issued on 12 August 2010. These submissions were received by the Complaints Service on 27 August 2010...

3. CAC 20003 v Weldrand [2013] NZREADT 78 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...complainant wanting to know why the sale was not proceeding and, according to the complainant, persisted in such questioning by a number of telephone calls and, allegedly, verbally abused the complainant. [12] After a while, in order to settle matters down between them, the complainant purchased a bottle of wine and, in about late August 2011, delivered it to the licensee’s office. However, that evening, the licensee arrived at the complainant’s home (which is also his place of wo...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 199 Toomey v Thames Coromandel District Council [pdf, 552 KB]

   ...appeal under s274 of the Act is that they are both a person who has an interest in the proceedings that is greater than the interest that the general public has within the meaning ofs274(1)(d). CWH also says that it made a submission on some of the matters included in the appeal, which would enable it to be a party in terms of s274(1)(e). I note that none of the trade competition provisions referred to in s274 are applicable to CWH orWBGT. [21] CWH says that its interest is in the...

5. LCRO 196/2016 GY v SO (15 September 2017) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...possibly the United Kingdom, Ms GY thought that she may need a New Zealand parenting order for PM. She made an internet search for lawyers practising in [Town]. On 8 April 2016 at 1.10 pm she telephoned [Town] Family Law to make enquiries about that matter. [6] Ms GY informed the receptionist who answered her call that she wanted to make enquiries about obtaining a parenting order. The receptionist requested her name, PM’s name, and then Mr YR’s name for the stated purpose of...

6. JD v RU LCRO 55 / 2011 (22 March 2012) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...intention or not, that is how Mr RU’s client felt and Mr RU felt some duty to try to minimise the effect of their presence on his client. [26] He accepts that he stopped in front of Mr JD and while acknowledging that he had an interest in the matter told him that he did not want Mr JD to enter into his life or be watching his premises. He denies however that he spoke with the degree of aggressiveness and lack of control described by Mr JD. [27] Mr RU advised that he has spent...

7. LCRO 236-2015 DZ v EY [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...application and every affidavit filed with it complies with the requirements of the Act and these rules; and (b) that the order sought is one that ought to be made. [25] FCR r 308(5) says that the “lawyer is responsible to the court in respect of the matters referred to” in (a) and (b) above. [26] In addition to the lawyer’s duty to the Court in FCR r 308, r 2.5 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) says: 6 A law...

8. [2019] NZEnvC 198 Banora v Auckland Council [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   [BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC } q 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an application to vary an enforcement order under sections 320(5) and 321 of the Act ALEXANDER N SANORA and EMANUELLA SANORA (ENV-2019-AKL-000280) Applicants AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Alternate Environment Judge C J Thompson Environment Commissioner A P Gysberts Hearing: 25 November 2019 A...

9. Moore - Lot 30 DP 40840 (being Oakura F2A) [2020] Māori Appellate Court MB 209 (2020 APPEAL 209) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...PĪRA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE TAITOKERAU In the Māori Appellate Court of New Zealand Taitokerau District A20200001142 APPEAL 2020/1 WĀHANGA Under Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Lot 30 Deposited Plan 40840 being Part Oakura F2A and a judgment made at 204 Taitokerau MB 164-169 on 11 November 2019 I WAENGA I A Between CARA MOORE Te Kaitono Applicant Nohoanga: Hearing 12 May 2020, 202...

10. Logan v Logan - Patangata 2F Section 2B [2022] Māori Appellate Court MB 234 (2022 APPEAL 234) [pdf, 286 KB]

    ...into account a relevant consideration; (c) Took into account an irrelevant consideration; or (d) Was plainly wrong. [13] An application to confirm an alienation is made per s 151 of the Act. The court must grant confirmation if satisfied of the matters set out in s 152(1) of the Act.5 The court has 3 Austin, Nichols and Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, Taueki – Horowhenua XIB 41 North A3A and 3B1 (2008) 16 Whanganui Appellate Court MB 30. 4 Kacem v Bashir [2010]...