Search Results

1. Government Response to Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Report: The Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations | Te Whakamahi i te Ira Tangata i ngā Mātai Taihara [pdf, 825 KB]

   ...expectation of privacy), under section 21 of the NZBORA and wider privacy values.12 These are related to bodily integrity, bodily autonomy and the protection of personal information for the individual and their familial connections. 10. The Court of Appeal has also noted that retention of DNA profiles on the databanks enables ongoing monitoring by the state.13 The effects of the regime may also have discriminatory impacts, engaging the right to freedom from discrimination under s...

2. Apo v Hudson - Maraenui No 141 and other blocks (2019) 227 Waiariki MB 43 (227 WAR 43) [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...satisfactorily; or (b) because of lack of competence or prolonged absence, the trustee is or will be incapable of carrying out those duties satisfactorily. [27] The leading authority on the removal of trustees is Rameka v Hall.2 The Court of Appeal in this case held that there is a two-stage test to determine whether a trustee should be removed. Firstly, the court must be satisfied that the trustee has breached his or her responsibilities. Secondly, if so, the Court must deci...

3. COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...17 R v Briggs [2009] NZCA 244 at [85] per Arnold J. 67. To trigger the concept of detention there must be a “substantial intrusion on personal liberty”,18 whether a physical deprivation or a statutory constraint. The Court of Appeal has held that:19 “An arrest or detention is arbitrary if it is capricious, unreasoned, without reasonable cause: if it is made without reference to an adequate determining principle or without following proper procedures.” 68. For...

4. Haretuku - Succession to Pirihira Te Whatu [2020] Chief Judge's MB 142 (2020 CJ 142 [pdf, 367 KB]

   ...Māori Act 1993, and recognising that Māori land is a taonga tuku iho to be retained by the owners their 4 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 5 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2020 Chief Judge’s MB 156 whānau and hapū, I consider that it is necessary in the interests of justice to remedy this mistake. [17] As this second Registrar’s Report has not been circulated to the parties, I am...

5. [2019] NZREADT 52 - Grewal (25 November 2019) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...We order that he is to pay a fine of $15,000 to the Authority, within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [60] 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 _____...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 93 Gestro v Relph [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...must determine the real nature of the relationship by taking all relevant matters into consideration, as just discussed. 4 Three Foot Six Ltd v Bryson [2004] 2 ERNZ 526 (CA) at [31] per McGrath J dissenting, this approach being undisturbed on appeal to the Supreme Court. 5 Franix Construction Ltd v Tozer [2014] NZEmpC 159, [2014] ERNZ 347 at [44]; citing Singh v Eric James and Associates Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 1 at [16]. 6 Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 150, [2...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 085 Lee & Rochwalski v Buller District Council [pdf, 380 KB]

   ...Regional Council in 2010.14 The decision granting the resource consent (including any conditions of that consent) will be recognised as valid until it is set aside or amended by a court of competent jurisdiction.15 While the Environment Court hears appeals against decisions granting resource consents, the court does not have an inherent power to review the decision of the Regional Council to grant a water permit. Given the above, I decline to issue the summons sought. Report w...

8. Paul v Doorbar - Pukepapa 3 (2020) 414 Aotea MB 16 (414 AOT 16) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...reservation land are not infrequent. As a result, there are many 14 For examples, see Taueki - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Part Reservation Trust [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 512 (2018 APPEAL 512); Hamilton-Tuahu 3X (2009) 34 Gisborne MB 230 (34 APGS 230); Marino – Repongaere 4G (Part) (2004) 34 Gisborne Appellate MB 98 (34 APGS 98); Perenara v Pryor – Matata 930 (2004) 10 Waiariki Appellate MB 233 (10 AP 233) 414 Aot...

9. [2021] NZREADT 43 - Complaints Assessment Committee v Lowndes (10 August 2021) [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...[57] The application for an order restricting publication of Ms Lowndes’ name, or identifying details, is declined. [58] 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 N O’Connor Member _____...

10. Yuile v Smith - Tuahu 6 (2022) 112 Tairawhiti MB 20 (112 TRW 20) [pdf, 320 KB]

    ...Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(a). 14 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(aa). 15 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(b). 16 Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87. 17 Whaanga - Anewa Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 45 (2013 APPEAL 45), at [38]. 18 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(c). 19 Bidois - Te Puna 154D3B2B (2008) 12 Waiariki Appellate MB 102 (12 AP 102), and Sione - Te Hapua 24 (2000) 4 Taitokerau Appellate MB 275 (4 APWH 275). https://www....