Search Results

1. BORA Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...the Bill excludes damages as a remedy in respect of a public law action against the relevant Minister alleging failure to comply with a protocol. This clause affects the substantive law and does not in my view fall within the ambit of s 27(3) which protects procedural rights. Accordingly, clause 23(3) of the Bill is not inconsistent with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights. Yours faithfully Jane Foster Associate Crown Counsel In addition to the general disclaimer for all documents on th...

2. BORA Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...Bill excludes damages as a remedy in respect of a public law action against the relevant Minister alleging failure to comply with the protocols. This clause affects the substantive law and does not in my view fall within the ambit of s 27(3) that protects procedural rights. Accordingly, clause 22(3) of the Bill is not inconsistent with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights. Yours faithfully Jane Foster Associate Crown Counsel In addition to the general disclaimer for all documents on this w...

3. BORA Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...• Section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right of everyone to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, whether of the person, property, correspondence or otherwise. Where actions do constitute a search or seizure, s 21 protects only against those searches or seizures that are “unreasonable” in the circumstances. • In our view, despite the clarifications being made by new ss 34 and 34A, the search and seizure powers in ss 32 or 33 are still reasonable...

4. BORA Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...of Rights Act. Any such limitation on s 27(2) would, however, be justified under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act as a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of the claims. 6. In so far as the section could be said to limit reliance on the protection of the rights of minorities under s 20 of the Bill of Rights Act, it would be justified under s 5 on the same basis. 7. The United Nations Human Rights Committee upheld a similar exclusion under the 1992 Fisheries Settlement, also a...

5. BORA Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...of the Bill is to ensure that financial services are provided in a way which promotes the confident and informed participation of businesses, investors, and consumers. To achieve this, the Bill makes amendments to ensure that the conduct and client-care obligations of financial service providers and the regulation of financial markets remain fit for purpose. Consistency of the Bill with the Bill of Rights Act Section 14 – Freedom of Expression 5. Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act...

6. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v McKay [2014] NZLCDT 57 [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...was the accurate version rather than that which had been found by the Tribunal on the basis of the complainant’s evidence. He did not make further submissions concerning the offending itself except that he asserted the public did not require protection from him. He considered that he had been the victim of a campaign by the District Law Society and appeared not to regard these charges or the other charges currently faced by him as well motivated or reflective of his high profess...

7. ENV-2016-AKL-000199 Self Family Trust v Auckland Council [pdf, 856 KB]

   ...Earthmovers Ltd, in particular the following: "[232J It is important to recall that, even for outstanding natural landscapes and also for the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, section 6{ aJ and (b J provide for protection from inappropriate subdivision, use and development; not absolute protection. " (10) The reference in the staff report to "prime soils" was unsupported by any direct evidence. The evidence produced to the Inde...

8. LCRO 233/2014 IB v KZ (27 June 2018) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...is, to a degree, an element of overlap in the submissions filed. A failure to reference a specific submission advanced is not to be construed by the parties as an oversight in failing to consider any argument advanced. All submissions have been carefully considered. Argument 1 — The decision to lodge the complaint was tactical. [25] At the nub of this argument, is suggestion that KZ were hostile to Mr IB, because of the sheer volume of cases that Mr IB was pursuing against them....

9. LCRO 178-2016 KO v RT [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...consideration as to whether it is appropriate to order a penalty, I refer to the guidance provided by the Disciplinary Tribunal which has stated that the:20 “predominant purposes [of orders] are to advance the public interest (which include ‘protection of the public’), to maintain professional standards, to impose 19 IO v SJ LCRO 84/2010 (1 February 2012) at [44], [47]. 20 Daniels v Standards Committee (2) of the Canterbury-Westlan...

10. Regulatory Impact Statement Parliamentary privilege bill [pdf, 302 KB]

    ...Ministers,  such  briefings  are  not  protected by absolute privilege.   42. The Privileges Committee considers these briefings to be necessary for the conduct of proceedings  in Parliament and  therefore  requiring  the  same protection.   The Privileges Committee considered  that the narrower construction of “proceedings  in Parliament” adopted by the Court could have a  “chilling  effect”  on  the  flow  of  information  to...