Search Results

1. Implementation

   ...Reliability of Progress Cases are more likely to progress on the day because the court is able to proactively case manage and make earlier decisions regarding readiness to proceed. Lawyers, third-parties and participants will be reminded about their upcoming responsibilities, so will be better prepared. Less time will be spent waiting for administrative activities to be completed after an event. Improved Effectiveness Unnecessary administration, data entry, double-handling and rework wi...

   Located in:

   1. Justice sector & policy >
   2. Key initiatives >
   3. Te Au Reka

2. Central Standards Committee 3 v S [2018] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...commencement of the own motion investigation, email exchanges occurred until July 2017. That general correspondence related to the steps being taken to bring the investigation to the end including a request that the respondent supply a substantive response, statement of financial position and any other relevant information. The respondent did not meet that request. [9] The respondent did not file a response to charge despite a direction from the Tribunal to do so by 15 December 20...

3. Te Au Reka

   ...Management System Te Au Reka is the new digital caseflow management system that will help to transform the administration of courts in New Zealand. It is a joint initiative of the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, respecting our joint and separate responsibilities. Te Au Reka will make a significant difference to all those who access and participate in our courts and tribunals, by establishing trusted, modern, and responsive digital case and court management capability. It will move courts...

   Located in:

   1. Justice sector & policy >
   2. Key initiatives

4. [2015] NZEmpC 7 Alatipi v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...the Lower North Region. She has held that role since 3 September 2012. At the time of the events giving rise to this litigation, Ms Hawthorn was the Assistant Regional Manager, Wellington Area within the prison services and, as such, she was responsible for Arohata, Wellington and Rimutaka Prisons. The managers of each of those prisons reported to her. [44] Ms Hawthorn told the Court that on 6 July 2011 she received an internal memorandum from Mr Tony O'Neill, the Investi...

5. [2019] NZEnvC 131 Minister for Children [pdf, 5.3 MB]

   ...receipt and consideration of updated SIA and SIMP. The updated SIA and the SIMP are to be lodged with the Court and circulated to all parties to these proceedings. The Council will be given 15 working days to file any comments from Mr Quigley in response. The Court will then issue further directions as to completion of the hearing as part of this process. Background Introduction [1] On 22 February 2019 the Minister for Children lodged with the Auckland Council (the Council) a No...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 234 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Samra Holdings Ltd T/A Te Puna Liquor Centre [pdf, 685 KB]

   ...neither a director nor a shareholder of the other defendants. However, Sukhdev Singh exercised significant influence over the management or administration of each of the first, second, third and fourth defendants. He had overall control over and responsibility for the five above-named employees’ employment. This included directing the employees as to where and when they were to work, responsibility for the payment of the employees’ wages, physical control over wage, time and h...

7. Proactive-Release-Family-Court-Associate-FINAL.pdf [pdf, 3 MB]

   ...proceedings and interlocutory hearings; 7 agreed that in order to recognise the judicial nature of the position and protect the Family Court Associate’s independence that: 7.1 the determination of the remuneration for the Family Court Associate be the responsibility of the Remuneration Authority; 7.2 a Permanent Legislative Authority should be provided for in the Family Court Act 1980 for the remuneration for the Family Court Associates; 1 I N C O N F I D E N C E6zgri7njvy 2022-03-2...

8. Grants Handbook v4.85.pdf [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...Services Agency as a Crown entity on February 1, 2001 and was amended effective 1 March 2007. The Legal Services Act 2011 (LSA) came into force on 1 July 2011 and disestablished the Legal Services Agency. It established the Secretary for Justice’s responsibilities for Legal Aid. Under the direction of the Minister and the Secretary, the Legal Services Commissioner is responsible for granting legal aid. Transitional policy and procedures Section 145 of the Legal Services Act 2011 (t...

9. Grants Handbook v4.83.pdf [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...Services Agency as a Crown entity on February 1, 2001 and was amended effective 1 March 2007. The Legal Services Act 2011 (LSA) came into force on 1 July 2011 and disestablished the Legal Services Agency. It established the Secretary for Justice’s responsibilities for Legal Aid. Under the direction of the Minister and the Secretary, the Legal Services Commissioner is responsible for granting legal aid. Transitional policy and procedures Section 145 of the Legal Services Act 2011 (t...

10. Grants-Handbook-v4.81.pdf [pdf, 1.2 MB]

    ...Services Agency as a Crown entity on February 1, 2001 and was amended effective 1 March 2007. The Legal Services Act 2011 (LSA) came into force on 1 July 2011 and disestablished the Legal Services Agency. It established the Secretary for Justice’s responsibilities for Legal Aid. Under the direction of the Minister and the Secretary, the Legal Services Commissioner is responsible for granting legal aid. Transitional policy and procedures Section 145 of the Legal Services Act 2011 (t...