Search Results

1. Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...the qualifying drugs for the oral fluid testing device to be set to test at. 10. Clause 20 of the Bill (proposed new ss 71A – 71F) sets out the procedure for the oral fluid testing scheme. Key features of the oral fluid testing scheme include: 10.1 a person may be required to undertake a first oral fluid test without cause, whether or not the person has already undergone an alcohol breath-screening test. However, they cannot be required to undertake an oral fluid test if they have...

2. Hill v Accident Compensation Corporation (Interest on weekly compensation) [2023] NZACC 216 [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...[7] In April 2005, Mr Hill again saw Dr Campbell, who noted “paraesthesia up to mid (R) hand and pain arm on extension of shoulder”. On 9 May 2005, consultation notes described: 1 Hill v Accident Compensation Corporation [2005] NZACC 101. An application for leave to appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 20 March 2006. 3 [Still complains of] paraesthesia R finger/thumb, weak grip, hand pain, weakness, numbness up arm too which he feels is due to 2002 neck accident...

3. [2024] NZREADT 16 TG v CAC 2204 & XW (5 June 2024) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...something that had not happened here. [8] A sale and purchase agreement for the motel was signed on 17 May 2022. [9] On 25 August 2022, the Civil Aviation Authority (the CAA) said in an email to the neighbour that there had been a breach of part 101 of the Civil Aviation Rules (the CAA rules). An educational advisory had been issued to the drone operator who extended his apologies. The CAA did not provide consent to such operators. Consent had to be obtained from the property o...

4. People found unfit to stand trial or not guilty by insanity December 2018 [xlsx, 85 KB]

   ...offences 1 0 2 0 1 3 1 2 0 4 2% 0% 2% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% 0% 2% 15: Offences against justice procedures, government security and government operations 1 1 2 2 5 3 1 3 7 8 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 1% 2% 4% 4% 16: Miscellaneous offences 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% Total 57 59 102 94 101 108 125 145 194 178 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 3.Unfit-gender ethnicity age Table 3: Number and percentage of people found unfit to stand trial, by gender, ethnicity and age...

5. CL & ZA v GU LCRO 148/2013 (25 May 2016) [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...that Mr CL’s views, and perhaps Mr ZA’s own experience, had the effect of compromising their objectivity, and potentially their independence, when dealing with Mr RF. However, the evidence is not sufficient to prove a contravention of rule 10.1. I consider it was reasonable for Mr CL and Mr ZA to have warned their client if they considered Mr RF was a formidable adversary. It is not clear that anything they said to Mr GU was disrespectful or discourteous to Mr RF such as to c...

6. [2012] NZEmpC 112 Idea Services Ltd v Barker [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...requirement imposed under s 114(2). 26 See too Dickson v Unilever New Zealand Ltd (2009) 6 NZELR 463 at [28]. Compare Abernethy v Dynea New Zealand (No 2) [2007] ERNZ 462 at [63]. 27 Section 101(ab); Creedy at [39]. 28 Section 101(a), (b). See too, for example, Board of Trustees of Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake O Tawhiuau v Edmonds [2008] ERNZ 139 at [40], [58]. [41] Ultimately, the issue of whether an employee has done enough t...

7. ENV-2016-AKL-000203 Frizzell v Auckland Council [pdf, 5.6 MB]

   ...in size fit countryside living some are immediate neighbours others directly across the road which I understand will come under Countryside Living. The immediately neighbouring properties on Clevedon Kawakawa Road are Nos 69 of 1.35 Ha 84 2.61Ha 101 2 Ha and Immediately across the road Nos 84 2.61Ha 84A 2.5 Ha 86A 2.29 Ha and 88 8018 M2 Also on McNicol road Nos 9 3.89 Ha 12 Mcnicol (Immediate Neighbour) 1096 M2 and 90 McNicol an Immediate Neighbour of 20 Ha Which has been confirmed to...

8. Karepa v Te Riini - The Kikorangi and Kareti Karepa Whānau Trust (2016) 138 Waiariki MB 134 (138 WAR 134) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...legal test as follows: 8 7 Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203. 8 Waaka v Harrison – Poike 14 (2015) 101 Waikato Maniapoto MB 216 (101 WMN 216) at [26]. 138 Waiariki MB 143 First, there must be an assessment of the trustees’ performance taking into account an assessment of the standard duties and the special nature of Māori land trust...

9. Land-Transport-Drug-Driving-Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 358 KB]

   ...laboratory analysis. 27. ‘Oral fluid screening test’ is defined in the Bill as a test that is carried out by means of an oral fluid screening device. The screening devices are not specified in the Bill 6 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. 7 At [161]. 8 Cropp v Judicial Committee [2008] 3 NZLR 744 at [33]; Hamed v R [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [162]. 9 Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [172] per Blanchard J. 5 WE...

10. [2023] NZEmpC 69 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 292 KB]

    ...and subsequently, Mr Halse’s primary submission became that his application for judicial review cannot be struck out because the Authority has not filed a statement of defence.19 [24] In respect of his primary submission, Mr Halse relies on s 10(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016. That subsection provides that a respondent to an application for judicial review must file a statement of defence unless otherwise directed by a Judge under s 14. To support his argument, M...