Search Results

1. Fisher v Foster (Costs) [2020] NZHRRT 29 [pdf, 623 KB]

   ...3). [8.8] On the other hand, understanding and compassion are equally important. See Andrews [80] as well as Meek v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 28 and Andrews v Commissioner of Police (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 31 which was upheld on appeal in Commissioner of Police v Andrews [2015] NZHC 745 at [65], [68] and [73] to [74]. Reference should also be made to Lohr v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs) [2016] NZHRRT 36 (Lohr) at [7] and [13] to [16]. [9] In Lohr at [6.7]...

2. National and Auckland Standards Committees v Orlov [2012] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...Scholtens will not be a member of the Tribunal considering his charges. [21] For the sake of completeness, we are unaware of any Interim Rulings which could be said to be adverse to Mr Orlov; but in any event rely on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue5 at [98] to [100]: “[98] It has to be accepted that there are occasions when a Judge’s prior rulings might lead a reasonable person to question whether he would remain impartial in any subs...

3. CAC 519 v Saxton [2019] NZREADT 44 (31 October 2019) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...pay a fine of $2,000.00. The fine is to be paid to the Authority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [18] 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 ___________________ Ms C Sandelin Member...

4. Auckland Standards Committee v Smith Charges [2015] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...an ex parte application, charged the beneficial interests of the husband in various entities, which were then set out in Schedule 2 of the order. [8] The wife applied for the order to be made final and the husband applied for a stay, having appealed the original award. Neither were successful when these applications were considered by Her Honour, Justice Ellis on 12 March 2013. In the course of that judgment Her Honour recorded the husband’s evidence that he held any shares...

5. Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill.pdf [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...Act; b. the use of force, in respect of the patient, must be reasonably necessary in the circumstances. This requires the use of force to be reasonably necessary in the circumstances as the intervener reasonably believed them to be. The Court of Appeal in R v Rosso noted that while there is an element of subjectivity (for example, there must be an actual belief), the test is objective.8 The purpose of the force will be to restrain the special patient and to ensure their safe transport...

6. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...only. Whether s 27(3) at issue 5. Since the original advice, negotiations for settlement of the claims have progressed. The proposed settlement will cut across extant litigation in the Supreme Court in which two parties (Wai 85 and Wai 429) bring appeals to enhance their ability to return to the Waitangi Tribunal to reargue their resumption claims. You have been separately briefed on these issues by Crown counsel engaged with the litigation. 1 On 19 March 2020 we also provided su...

7. ORC PC7 Hearing Schedule - 25.06.2021 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...Questioning / Cross-Examination WISE Response *Via AVL (TBC) Dr Hamish Rennie Closing Representation Closing Closing (15min) Court (15min) Royal Forest & Bird *Brought forward due to unavailability the following week of 5 July with a Court of Appeal fixture Peter Anderson Opening / Closing Submission Opening / Closing Closing (30min) Court (15min) NZ Fine Wines Estates Dean van Mierlo Closing Submission Closing Closing (30min) Court (15min) McArthur Ridge & Ors Kelvin Rei...

8. BORA Taxation (Annual Rates, Trans-Tasman Savings Portability, KiwiSaver, and Remedial Matters) Bill [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act. Jeff Orr Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel Footnotes: 1. In applying section 5, we have had regard to the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7; the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Transport (MOT) v Noort [1993] 3 NZLR 260, Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9 and Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] 2 NZLR 754; and the Supreme Court of Canada's decisi...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 070 Canterbury Regional Council [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...waiver, relevant factors include the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the scheme of the Act relating to public participation, what has occurred in the proceeding and what effect introducing new parties might have on progressing the appeal to resolution. Whether there is any undue prejudice [17] No party has claimed that they will be unduly prejudiced by the application for waiver and the delay is of no real moment given the stage of the proceeding. [18] I cannot se...

10. Gill v Singh [2017] NZIACDT 5 (6 April 2017) [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...incorrect advice as a result is not contested. This is not a case where a party has simply failed to call evidence that was available, and only chose to do so after an adverse result. The circumstances come within the general principles where an appeal or application for rehearing is allowed due to a fundamental error on the part of counsel. The misunderstanding regarding the right to silence, and the drawing of adverse inferences is quite different from the inevitable decisions that...