Search Results

1. Livingstone v Animal Health Board — Lake Rotoaira Forest Lands (2009) 245 Aotea MB 124 (245 AOT 124) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...aerial drop of the poison known as 1080 over various blocks of Māori freehold land in which he claims an interest as an owner. Mr Livingstone says that the use of 1080 will have a devastating effect on wildlife including important national and protected species. He further claims that the Animal Health Board and associated authorities have failed to notify, provide opportunity for discussion and secure the support of the trustees and owners of the affected lands. Mr Livingstone th...

2. CAC20005 v Morton-Jones [2015] NZREADT 71 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...prosecution having encapsulated submissions under the above heading which are substantially as follows. [8] It is well established that penalty decisions of professional disciplinary tribunals should emphasise the maintenance of high standards and the protection of the public through specific and general deterrence. While this may result in orders having a punitive effect, this is not their purpose; Z v CAC [2009] 1 NZLR 1; CAC v Walker [2011] NZREADT 4. Section 110(2) of the Act set...

3. National Standards Committee v Toner [2013] NZLCDT 38 [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...information before the Tribunal about Ms Toner’s psychological history and various treatments undertaken by her. [10] This was not only necessary because of the need to understand how Ms Toner came to be before us but also to fulfil our obligation to protect the public from any future “acting out” on Ms Toner’s part as a result of her personal difficulties. [11] The focus of the hearing was squarely on Ms Toner’s steps towards rehabilitation thus far and risks to that by p...

4. BORA Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill [pdf, 405 KB]

   ...conclusion we considered potential issues of inconsistency with sections 17, 21, and 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. 3. The Bill proposes to establish a regime to ensure best practice for the delivery and management of drinking-water supplies to protect the health and safety of people and communities. For example, the Bill: • requires certain drinking-water suppliers and water carriers to have a public health risk management plan; • requires drinking-water suppliers to comply wit...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 8 Q v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. In fact the Employment Court does not have an inherent jurisdiction. 2 What the Employment Court does have as a Court of record, however, is an inherent power to control its procedures and to protect its processes from abuse. 3 Discussion [13] In Watson v Clarke, Robertson J explained the distinction between the inherent powers of a Court and inherent jurisdiction in the following way: 4 The latter [i.e. inherent jurisdiction...

6. Appendices (Abortion Supervisory Committee) [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...when the licence was issued: (b) In the case of any other institution, the person who is for the time being in charge of the institution, whether or not that person was in charge of it when the licence was issued: hospital means a hospital care institution within the meaning of section 58(4) of the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001 Hospital Board: Definition repealed. institution means any hospital, clinic, or other premises in which it is proposed to per...

7. BORA Smoke-Free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...the Bill of Rights Act affirms New Zealand’s commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19(3) of which expressly states that the right to freedom of expression may be subject to limitations necessary for the protection of public health. In addition, we again note that limits on commercial expression are more readily justifiable than other forms of expression. Rational connection 11.We consider that the limit on the right to freedom of expression...

8. BORA Overseas Investment Bill [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...is not admissible in evidence in any proceeding under the Bill except for proceedings under clause 46 (offence of making false or misleading statements). 9. These provisions raise issues under section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act. Section 14 protects freedom of expression, which includes the right to say nothing. We have considered whether these provisions can be justified in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. 3 10. The objective of these provisions is to prom...

9. Ihe - Tarewa East 1A (2008) 326 Rotorua MB 45 (326 ROT 45) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...introduction by the legislature, of a first right of refusal, strikes a balance between land-owner control or tino rangatiratanga on the one hand and hapu interest in a collective taonga tuku iho on the other.. . in our view the removal of that protection should only be a110vied where the application is in some material way outside the ordinary lUn of cases. That must be so, because to adopt any other approach would be to undermine the very careful balance between owners and the \vi...

10. P v H LCRO 02 / 2009 (20 March 2009) [pdf, 23 KB]

    ...to consider the meaning of vexatious and concluded that “in a legal context the word ‘vexatious’ has come to mean ‘not having sufficient grounds’”. In that case his honour was considering whether a certain application in respect of care and protection proceedings in relation to a child should be struck out as “frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the procedure of the Court”. His honour also observed that a high threshold must be reached before making such a 3 fi...