Search Results

1. People found unfit to stand trial or not guilty by insanity December 2017 [xlsx, 82 KB]

   ...offences 5 2 0 8 4 5 7 3 3 5 14: Traffic and vehicle regulatory offences 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 1 2 0 15: Offences against justice procedures, government security and government operations 1 1 1 2 2 5 3 1 4 7 16: Miscellaneous offences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 68 57 59 102 94 101 108 125 146 193 3.Unfit-age gender ethnicity Table 3a: Number of people found unfit to stand trial, by age group, 2008 - 2017 This data counts a person once per calendar year. Age is the person's age at the offen...

2. Practice Note: Hague Convention cases - mediation process [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...mediation guidelines setting out what is expected of mediators. 9 RIGHTS OF ACCESS 9.1 The foregoing provisions in these Guidelines shall apply to applications to enforce rights of access, with the necessary modifications. 10 DEFINITION 10.1 The term “parent” includes: (a) any person who is an applicant for the return of a child; (b) any person claiming to have rights of access in respect of a child; (c) any person who opposes the return of a child; and (d) any pe...

3. [2018] NZEnvC 196 Dromgool v Minister for Land Information [pdf, 146 KB]

   /SEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC I 9 b of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act DROMGOOL (ENV-2017-AKL-101) POULTON (ENV-2017 -AKL-1 02) NEWMAN FARMS LIMITED (ENV-2017-AKL-103) Objectors MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION Respondent Court: Environment Judge JA Smith Environment Commissioner ACE Leijnen Environment Commissioner 1M Buch...

4. Auckland District Law society v Faleauto [2010] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...parties to file submissions on penalty. Those submissions have since been received and considered. 2. The three charges proven are particularised in our decision of 21 December 2009, but in general terms involved; 2.1 Misconduct under S. 101(6) Law Practitioners Act 1982 (refusing or failing to comply with a requirement to provide documents); 2.2 Failing to render an invoice or bill of costs to a client in respect of fees; and, 2.3 Obtaining, and attempting to obtain, money...

5. Abyaneh v Auckland City Council [pdf, 20 KB]

   ...claimants did not accept the Calderbank Offer. 4 Simpson Family Trust Decision 10. Mr Asad Ali referred to the decision in Trustees Executors Ltd (trustee for the Simpson Family Trust) v Wellington City Council & Ors, WHT, TRI 2007-101-000029 (30 May 2008) in which the adjudicator ordered costs against both the claimant and the ninth respondent. In reaching that decision the adjudicator found that the claimant had wrongly rejected an offer prior to adjudicatio...

6. [2021] NZEnvC 102 Bay of Islands Maritime Park Incorporated v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...Appendix 5; 8.3 Appendix 7. 100379837/1715558.0 4 Mark Semmens Evidence in Chief [EB Tab 47) 9 Paragraphs: 9.1 [10] to [11] inclusive; 9.2 [13]; 9.3 [16] to [18] inclusive. Mark Ngata Evidence in Chief [EB Tab 46] 10 Paragraphs: 10.1 [26] to [28] inclusive; 10.2 Table at paragraph [26]; 10.3 Map at paragraph [28] Graeme Bailey Evidence in Chief [EB Tab 45] 11 Paragraphs: 11.1 [16] to [20] inclusive; 11.2 [22] to [24] inclusive; 11.3 [32]; 11.4 [36]. Agreed...

7. BORA Corrections Bill Appendix 1 [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...or determination. Footnotes: 1. Diane Pretty (Application No. 2346/02) para 52 2. Police v. Smith and Herewini [1994] 2 NZLR 306, 316; (1993) 11 CRNZ 78, 88; per Richardson J. 3. UN Human Rights Committee 305/88 4. Neilsen v A-G 3/5/01, CA101/00 5. General Comment 21[44], adopted on 3/04/1992

8. NZ Private Prosecution Service Ltd v Key (Service of Statement of Claim) [2015] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...of ensuring that both the plaintiff and defendant must serve all documents on her (or her authorised representative). As the case progresses she can make a decision whether to utilise s 108. Directions [10] The following directions are made: [10.1] Service of the proceedings on Rt Hon John Key is to be effected in terms of Regulations 12 and 13 of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 but in a manner consistent with the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 and the 2014 Stand...

9. BORA Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...does not comply with the requirements under s 229. 1 See, for example, Slaight Communications v Davidson 59 DLR (4th) 416; Wooley v Maynard 430 US 705 (1977). 2 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. 16. We consider the extension of the powers under s 229 to a wider set of circumstances constitutes a search for the purposes of s 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. Ordinarily, a provision foun...

10. AP v ZB LCRO 50/2015 (31 March 2015) [pdf, 26 KB]

    ...delay uplifting the email (he had been advised of its arrival) cannot be advanced as reasonable argument for displacing the requirement that a 2 Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill 2010 (120-1), cl 10.1. 4 review application be filed within 30 days of the determination being served. Mr AP acknowledges that he received notification of the email’s arrival. [16] There are two critical elements to s 198. Firstly, the section e...