Search Results

1. BORA Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...Impoundment does not occur in order to facilitate forfeiture, as release occurs after 28 days even if - as will generally be the case - charges are yet to be determined; and 9.3. Impoundment can also cease before the expiry of the 28 day period on appeal by the driver or owner on various grounds, rather than only when charges have been dismissed or do not proceed: see ss 102(1) and 110 LTA. 10. also note, in this respect, that the explanatory note to the Bill records serious risks to pu...

2. BORA Limitation Bill [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...instances; and 2.3 Introduces a “longstop period” of 15 years beyond which exceptions to the general limitation periods will not normally be available. Application of limitation period to claims under the Bill of Rights Act 3. The Court of Appeal held in Sugrue (PF) Ltd v Attorney-General [2004] 1 NZLR 207 that the limitation provisions in s 4(1) of the current Limitation Act did not encompass such claims, although the Court did indicate that delay in pursuing a claim was a factor...

3. BORA Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill [pdf, 306 KB]

   ...Harper, above n 7, at [48] and [144]. 11. Clause 16 and s 207K of the Electoral Act 1993. Such restrictions are readily upheld: see, for example, Harper v Canada (Attorney-General) (2002) 22 DLR (4th) 275, [193] & [289] (British Columbia Court of Appeal; reversed, but not on this point, by Harper, above n 7) and Citizens United, above n 8, 46-47. The exclusion of non-residents does not engage any ground of discrimination under s 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act and s 21 of the Hum...

4. BORA Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...a. it draws a distinction on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination; and b. the distinction involves material disadvantage to one or more classes of individuals. 7. In Ministry of Health v Atkinson, the Court of Appeal held that “differential treatment on a prohibited ground of a person or group in comparable circumstances will be discriminatory if, when viewed in context, it imposes a material disadvantage on the person or group differentiated against...

5. Solomon - Manukau Lands Trust (2018) 51 Te Waipounamu MB 40 (51 TWP 40) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...The Court has power to add, reduce, or replace trustees per s 239 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. Section 222(2) of the Act sets out the relevant factors when appointing trustees. [10] I adopt the principles which were set out by the Court of Appeal in Clarke v Karaitiana:2 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowledge of the individual concerned. In considering those issues, the Co...

6. PSPLA - Individual licence annual return form [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...section 65 of the Land Transport Act 1998, or an earlier equivalent provision?  Yes  No Have you ever been ordered by a New Zealand court to be imprisoned following conviction for an offence and that conviction or order has not been quashed on appeal?  Yes  No In the last 7 years, have you ever been convicted by a New Zealand court of an offence under the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 or Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974 for...

7. MacDonald - Oraka 4A2 (2006) 111 Wairoa MB 32 (111 WR 32) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...Act 1993. These reflect the primary objectives ofTe Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 which is the retention, use and development of Maori land by its owners, their whanau and hapu. [15] In Valuer-General v Mangatu Inc (1997) 641, 649-651, the Court of Appeal considered the application of the preamble, sections 2 & 17 to change of status application. The Court stated: TJ1t~ Mi'inri T.nnd f'n1Jrt v't:t>rr:ls:p.s its nnwers and resvonsibilities in relation to avvlicatio...

8. Gemmell v Hemana - Mohaka A4 (2017) 61 Tākitimu MB 239 (61 TKT 239) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...1 Mr Hemana was appointed sole responsible trustee on 19 December 2014 at 36 Takitimu MB 254 (36 TKT 254) 2 144 Napier MB 93-94 (144 NA 93-94) 3 [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 657 (2015 APPEAL 657) 61 Tākitimu MB 241 [6] From 1996 until approximately 2005 the Tauwhareroa trust effectively administered the Mohaka A4 block, contrary to the Mohaka A4 Trust’s role as trustee. The Tauwhareroa trust received income due to t

9. [2017] NZEnvC 139 MacKenzie v Vavasour Investments Limited [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...consent under Rule E15.4 A19 as a restricted discretionary activity; (b) A number of other rules in the AUP also apply, including buildings in an Outstanding Natural Landscape (which is a discretionary activity); 4 (c) Because of an outstanding appeal against a rule in the AUP relating to the number of dwellings permitted on the site, the development also requires consent under the Rodney section of the Auckland Council District Plan as an integrated residential development in...

10. Michael Moore – Rebuttal (dated 12 June 2017) [pdf, 6.4 MB]

    BI-309448-3-771-V1 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY ENV-2016-CHC-47 IN THE MATTER Of an appeal under section 120 Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN BLUESKIN ENERGY LIMITED Appellant AND DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL Respondent REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF MICHAEL WILLIAM MOORE ______________________________________...