Search Results

1. Solomon v Solomon - Manukau Lands Trust (2020) 66 TeWaipounamu MB 207 (66 TWP 207) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...make unanimous decisions as required by the trust order. In these circumstances the only option is to remove trustees where unsatisfactory conduct has been established, as is the case here. That is not to say that Maui Solomon does not share some responsibility for the dynamic that has developed amongst the trustees. My observation is that his response to the hostility and resistance he has received from hūnau members is often ‘my way or the highway” and while this is one way to...

2. Pillay v New Zealand Transport Agency [2021] NZHRRT 13 [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...submitted it responded in good faith. 5 [21] Mr Pillay did not specifically address s 48 of the OIA in his submissions. However, Mr Pillay is self-represented, and alleged that there was cronyism between NZTA and VTNZ in the timing and overall response to the OIA request and has alleged racial profiling. These claims are effectively allegations of bad faith and a breach of the duty of good faith. Therefore while Mr Pillay may not have appreciated the need to specifically plea...

3. LCRO 18/2020 MP v LT (31 August 2020) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...filed with the LCRO that the “complaint had been made against LT, who had rendered the invoice on instructions of the firm, [Law Firm]. We consider that the complaint, if it be upheld, should be found to be against [Law Firm], being the entity responsible for rendering the invoice to the complainant”. [49] Ms CR is correct in identifying that Ms LT appears to have been incorrectly identified as the sole subject of Mr MP’s complaint. It was not the case that Ms LT rendered th...

4. Director of Proceedings v Southern District Health Board [2020] NZHRRT 5 [pdf, 494 KB]

   ...evidence. 45. Ms K said that the "cross-check principle is basic to good clinical practice", and noted that cross-checking had not been a consistent part of Mr G's practice. 46. Ms K said that Mr G had frequently identified ABR responses in what were essentially random noisy recordings. She said that this was "very dangerous" as Mr G was "drawing unwarranted conclusions from these recordings, usually from children who are not able to be co-operative i...

5. LCRO 95/2023 JV v FA (8 October 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...will not be disclosed unless required to do so by law or when requested to do so or with Mr FA’s consent; and (iii) the information disclosed to Ms HY included the jury trial date, Crown charge notice and summary of facts. [16] Dr JV provided responses to Mr FA’s complaints on 7 October 2022, 5 December 2022 and 15 March 2023. [17] I do not propose to summarise all of the matters traversed in those responses. [18] Dr JV emphasised in his responses that: (a) Mr FA had been prov...

6. OIA-120238.pdf [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...ministers' Goldsmith and McKee's words, 'giving businesses more powers to detain those stealing from them' On 9 April 2025, the Ministry contacted you to extend the time to respond to you, as due to the need for external consultation the response could not be reasonably made within the original time limit. In response to your request, please refer to the annexed table and attached document pack, for the information in scope of your request, and the decision on the...

7. 2018 to 2023 Ministry of Justice statement of intent [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...access to justice for all. This is why we put people at the centre of everything we do. People who use our services have diverse needs, which we work to address. We ensure that we have clear and accessible law so people understand their rights and responsibilities. We are making it easier to access the services that enable people to enforce those rights. We support fair and impartial procedures, which we are making easier to navigate, so that people can spend less time resolving their...

8. OIA-120782.pdf [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...in the last six months. This will include any papers or briefings received by the Minister of Justice in that time. On 24 April 2025, the Ministry contacted you to extend the time to respond to you. Due to the need for external consultation, the response could not be made within the original time limit. The response to your request will be provided in two tranches. This letter includes tranche one, and tranche two will consist of further advice the Ministry produced for the Te Anga Whak...

9. Cooper v Wellington City Council [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...registered owner of the property and generally I have referred to the Claimant although where appropriate the term owner has been used.. 3.2 The first respondent is Wellington City Council (“Council”), which is the territorial authority responsible for the administration of the Building Act in the area. 3.3 The second respondent is R & I Kennedy Limited who were contracted to build the house and were responsible as main contractors for the subcontractors and supervis...

10. OIA-120014.pdf [pdf, 5.9 MB]

    ...used to inform and prioritise system enhancements. Te Anga Whakamua will continue to implement the remaining recommendations in the PIR report. It is expected that most of the recommendations will be implemented by June. Please note that this response, with your personal details removed, may be published on the Ministry website at: Official Information Act responses | New Zealand Ministry of Justice If you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to make a complaint...