15026 items matching your search terms
...1 R v Oakes (1986) 26 DLR (4th) 200 (Canadian Supreme Court); S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso (1995) 2 SACR 748 (South African Constitutional Court) and R v Sin Yau-Ming [1992] LRC (Const) 547 (Hong Kong Court of Appeal) 2 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7 3 Important and Significant Objective 14. As noted above, the purpose of the amendment is to restrict the availability of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to make it more difficult for potential m
...Section 21 does not affirm the right to be secure against all searches and seizures, just those that are unreasonable. It requires that certain procedural safeguards be established around the powers to ensure that they are reasonable. 14. The Court of Appeal has indicated that a balancing exercise is required to determine whether a search or seizure is unreasonable. The balance is between the legitimate interests of the state in law enforcement and the privacy interests of the individual....
...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...
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Court: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC 1'-1 0 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act A PIERAU (ENV-2016-AKL-000174) Appellant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Principal Environment Judge L J Newhook Environment Commissioner D J Bunting Deputy Environment Commissioner R Bartlett Final decision made on the papers Appearances: Date of Decision: Date of Issue: B Carru...
...tmstees and I or more custodian trustees. " (Emphasis added) Minute Bool<: 159 GIS 101 Case Law In the judgment The Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Maori Land Court and Anal' (CA 65/99, 16 June 1999, Wellington) the COUlt of Appeal stressed the broad powers of this COUlt in respect of trusts, Blanchard J, in delivering the judgment of that COUlt at 1'1'9-10 stated that the Maori Land COUlt " '" is expressly given in s237 in respect of a...
...rule E25,6,27, 12 The approach sought by the Submitter is supported by the As!:;essment, of Environmental Effects as this recognises that given the regional coastal provisions which form part of the AUP have been through the AUP process and no appeals an~ outstandi,ng that significant weight should be given, to these provisions and little or no weight should be given to the RCP, 13 The Marshall Day Report indicates that except for piling and concrete cutting all other construction a...
...where Judge Hassan considers questions of whether s 274 applies should be viewed not with a view to legal nicety, but with the view that submitters and intended parties are “intended to be given a fair opportunity to continue to be heard in plan appeals related to the matters or topics that their submission addresses”. This view is supported by earlier High Court authority albeit in respect of different provisions: see Countdown Properties (Northlands) Ltd v Dunedin City Council...
...withdrawn then there is no need for the removal application to proceed any further and it is accordingly dismissed. 12 Nicholas v Gibbons – Poike 8E [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 68 (2019 APPEAL 68) https://www.maorilandcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/nicholas-v-gibbons-poike-82019appeal-682019-appeal-68-.pdf https://www.maorilandcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/nicholas-v-gibbons-poike-82019appeal-6820...
...appoint a trustee, the Court shall have regard to the ability, experience, and knowledge of the person and shall not make an appointment unless it is satisfied that the person is broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [14] The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the appointment of trustees.1 In that case the Court confirmed that the views of the beneficiaries will be compelling, unless there are relevant disqualifying considerations:2...
...directs that Mr Zhang’s letter of apology (attached to Ms Harrison’s submissions) is to be forwarded to the vendor. [34] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. ___________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ____________________ Mr G Denley Member __...