Search Results

1. [2021] NZACC 127 - Jones v ACC (11 August 2021) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...for recalling judgments. Grounds relied upon by Mr Jones [36] In summary, Mr Jones submits that the Authority held that the Corporation had a right to destroy his 1991 claim file and this finding is wrong having regard to the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (“HRRT”) in Vivash v Accident Compensation Corporation.11 [37] Further, he asserts that the HRRT is a superior court to the Authority and that the Authority’s finding that the Corporation had not acted crimi...

2. [2020] NZIACDT 52 - TBE v Proudman (4 December 2020) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...overall, is the penalty which is fair, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. DISCUSSION [27] Ms Proudman’s initial mistake was one of interpretation of the immigration instructions. While it could not be described as minor or simple human error, as the Tribunal pointed out in the substantive decision, Ms Proudman’s subsequent conduct has significantly exacerbated her wrongdoing.8 She concealed Immigration New Zealand’s decision from her client, falsely claimin...

3. [2021] NZACC 65 - Crowley v ACC (20 April 2021) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...injury caused by an accident. [17] Section 25 of the 2001 Act defines "accident'. It means, inter alia, a specific event or series of events other than a gradual process, involving the application of force or resistance external to the human body. [18] “Personal injury” is defined at s26 of the 2001 Act and includes, for example, a strain or sprain. [19] Section 26(2) and (4) exclude from the definition of personal injury, personal injury caused wholly or substanti...

4. Rules-Committee-Amendment-Rules-2022.pdf [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...ISTER O F JU STIC E 4 Compliance 10. The regulatory changes comply with each of the following: 10.1. the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi; 10.2. the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993; 10.3. the principles and guidelines set out in the Privacy Act 2020; 10.4. relevant international standards and obligations; and 10.5. the Legislation Guidelines (2021 edition), which are maintained by the Legislation...

5. [2017] NZEmpC 150 Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs Ltd [pdf, 492 KB]

   ...response to a query from Ms Park about the figures he had provided) advised LSG that “our charge rate does include employee costs and it will be paid to the employees supplied to LSG.” 2 See “To Whom it May Concern” letter from Mr Dempsey, human resources manager, dated 29 September 2009. [8] Despite the benefits LSG perceived in its relationship with Solutions, it is apparent that it began to harbour concerns about potential legal risk. This led to an email from...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 25 Roberts v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...subsection (1). (4) Subsection (1) does not prevent any person bringing proceedings under— (a) section 50 or section 51 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994; or (b) any of sections 92B, 92E, 92R, 122, 122A, 122B, 123, or 124 of the Human Rights Act 1993. 5 Murray v Morel & Co Ltd [2007] NZSC 27, [2007] 3 NZLR 721 at [33]. 6 Auckland Council v Drought [2019] NZEmpC 63, [2019] ERNZ 135 at [21]. 7 R v Gordon-Smith [2008] NZSC 56, [2009] 1 NZLR 721 at [14]�...

7. BORA Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...on the grounds of age. 11. The key questions in assessing whether there is a limit on the right to freedom from discrimination are whether the legislation draws a distinction on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under s 21 of the Human Rights Act, and if so, whether the distinction involves disadvantage to one or more classes of individuals. 1 12. We have considered whether cl 79 limits the right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of age. 13. Clause 79...

8. Sufi v Department of Labour [2012] NZHRRT 6 [pdf, 65 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2012] NZHRRT 6 Reference No. HRRT 008/2011 IN THE MATTER OF A CLAIM UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 1993 BETWEEN AA (PAKISTAN) PLAINTIFF AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR DEFENDANT AT AUCKLAND Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Mr R Musuku, Member Mr B Neeson, Member Plaintiff in person Ms C Pille for Defendant DATE OF HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 28 March 2012...

9. Hiroki v Hiroki - Tikitiki B13C1A (2011) 17 Tairawhiti MB 54 (17 TRW 54) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...is interfering with Joseph’s occupation on Tikitiki B13C1B – Taurapa; 17 Tairawhiti MB 60 Other members of the whānau contributed money for the bach which went into the whānau bank account; Other whānau members contributed in human resource terms to the erection of the building, for example Joseph Hiroki; The applicant fails to accept that the building has been erected on the wrong block, Tikitiki B13C1B – Taurapa. [18] At the first hearing of the application,...

10. BORA Biosecurity Law Reform Bill [pdf, 335 KB]

    ...infringing act) where they can show that the failure was necessary for the purpose of saving or protecting life or health, preventing serious damage to property, or avoiding an actual or likely adverse effect on a natural and physical resource or human health. • To avoid liability under the new sections, the defendant’s conduct also has to have been reasonable in the circumstances and the defendant must have taken all reasonable steps to mitigate or remedy the effects of the failure...