Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 89 Shalini Ltd v A Labour Inspector [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...determination are not in dispute, and as this is a non-de novo challenge there is no need to retraverse undisputed facts. The background to the matter was set out by the Authority in its determination as follows: [5] Shalini was subject to two investigations by the Labour Inspector in 2016. These investigations preceded the investigation in 2017 which forms the basis for the current application for penalties. … [6] The first investigation in 2016 was resolved when Shalini...

2. BORA Evidence Bill [pdf, 406 KB]

   ...ill-treatment and production of dubious confessions.[12] He noted the various legislative provisions that had overridden the privilege, including wide powers of inspectors under the Companies Act 1985 (UK), the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) and in respect of investigations involving serious or complex fraud. He described those provisions as 'Parliament [having] recognised in a piecemeal fashion that the privilege against self-incrimination is profoundly unsatisfactory when no question of i...

3. Wernham v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs) [2023] NZACC 041 [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...The Reviewer quashed the decision of the New Zealand Police (“the Police”), dated 11 March 2021, declining Mr Wernham’s claim for cover for a work-related gradual process injury (“WRGPI”). This decision was on the basis that further investigation was necessary. The Reviewer directed the Police to reinvestigate the claim and issue a new decision. On 11 August 2022, the Court directed, by consent, that: 2 (1) the Reviewer’s decision be varied so that it did not qu...

4. Statement - Cyber security incident

   ...affected can email contactus@justice.govt.nz  or dial 0800 638 924.  The 0800 number will be open from Wednesday 7 December between 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday. Who is behind this cyber-security incident? As this is an ongoing investigation, we cannot comment on who might be responsible. Have coronial services been impacted? Coronial services continue to operate as usual. How did this happen and what is the Ministry of Justice doing to stop this from happening aga...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. News & media >
   3. Media releases

5. JN v QQ LCRO 13 / 2012 (28 August 2012) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...behalf at both the trial and sentencing. [3] It seems that later that year the Applicant approached [another] barrister regarding a possible appeal. According to the Applicant that barrister “did pursue some matters with the assistance of a private investigator” but ultimately suggested that the 2 appeal be withdrawn at that time “until new evidence arose”. The Applicant has now been in prison for [several] years. [4] In September 2011 the Applicant filed a forma...

6. National Standards Committee v Shi [2018] NZLCDT 18 [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...Hong Kong. 7. On 21 March 2016, while Mr X was in Hong Kong, Ms J asked him for a marriage separation and he agreed. 8. On 30 March 2016 Mr X returned to New Zealand. The Victoria Street Property 9. On 3 March 2016 the practitioner signed a private client authority and instruction form that authorised Richard Zhao Lawyers Ltd to effect an electronic transaction in respect of the Victoria Street Property. The purported signature of Mr X and signature of Ms J appeared on the docu...

7. Tan v Chief Executive Ministry of Social Development (Non Party Access to Tribunal File) [2016] NZHRRT 2 [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...agreed to at a dispute resolution meeting. [12] The significance of the dispute resolution process as presently found in the Act cannot be overemphasised. The Human Rights Amendment Act 2001 required the Human Rights Commission to replace the formal investigation of complaints of unlawful discrimination and the issuing of opinions with facilitation of their resolution in the most efficient, informal and cost-effective manner possible. [13] The account of these changes in Sylvia Bell...

8. [2015] NZEmpC 59 Bracewell v Richmond Services Limited [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...she could not remove herself. She was therefore by definition a “vulnerable adult”. e) It was asserted that if the documents held by the Court were released to Richmond they would “either be altered, destroyed or made inaccessible to investigators”. f) Because it was asserted the new evidence would confirm that Ms Bracewell’s rights had been violated under the PD Act so as to prevent investigation of her complaints, she was lawfully entitled to obtain those document...

9. [2023] NZEmpC 133 Chain & Rigging Supplies Ltd v Nikorima [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...customers precisely the “same pricing” as that which had been adopted by C&R including, in one case, a similar discount. Ms Edwards is concerned that Mr Nikorima has probably copied other C&R information as well. [21] On 27 July 2023, a private investigator carried out covert surveillance of the former employee who was driving the same brand of van as that which he had driven for C&R, endorsed with a Rapido logo. He visited two customers with whom he and Mr Nikorim...

10. KC v LF LCRO 046/2012 (21 November 2014) [pdf, 51 KB]

    ...with the New Zealand Law Society Complaints Service. (1) LF had engaged in unethical and improper conduct by commencing to tape a hearing that KC was involved in, without advising KC that the proceedings were being taped. (2) LF had retained private and confidential records which he was not entitled to do. (3) LF had refused to allow him the opportunity of a fair hearing. [6] In response to KC’s complaint LF submitted that: (1) At the time of conducting the review, he was no...