Search Results

1. BORA Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...7. Part 2 amends the Holidays Act 2003 to clarify that penalties for failure to comply with provisions of that Act apply to persons who are involved in the failure to comply as well as employers. 8. Part 3 amends the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. It extends the definition of ‘primary carer’ to include a spouse or partner who takes on permanent primary responsibility for the care, development and upbringing of a child under 12 months old, in situations where the b...

2. BORA Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...7. Part 2 amends the Holidays Act 2003 to clarify that penalties for failure to comply with provisions of that Act apply to persons who are involved in the failure to comply as well as employers. 8. Part 3 amends the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. It extends the definition of ‘primary carer’ to include a spouse or partner who takes on permanent primary responsibility for the care, development and upbringing of a child under 12 months old, in situations where the b...

3. Revictimisation-Policy-brief.pdf [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...complex needs These findings indicate that people who are at higher risk of poly-victimisation have complex needs. A more nuanced understanding of how characteristics intersect to increase risk can help service providers and policymakers reach and protect crime victims. We recommend early identification of people at risk of becoming poly-victims through a multi-agency approach, using targeted support to reduce vulnerability to re-victimisation. Screening questions at services like victim...

4. [2006] NZEmpC AC 54/06 Yuan Cheng International Investment Group Ltd v Buer [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...addressed the decision of Pearce v Attorney-General in respect of the Department of Labour [2005] 1 ERNZ 731. That was a case where the full Court of the Employment Court considered the effect of an amendment to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 on the interpretation of the original section. The Court accepted there were three possibilities that can be gained from the authorities: • The original legislation was ambiguous and therefore the amending legislatio...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...defined in s 241(c)?3 5. If not, did unsatisfactory conduct occur? Background [5] Ms Fendall is a practitioner of many years’ experience who has primarily specialised in representing young people in the Youth Court. [6] Having taken out income protection insurance in 2002, she made her first claim under the policy in September 2009. Her claim was accepted because she was suffering from depression. [7] This was the first claim period of two periods which are under consideratio...

6. LCRO 121/2023 AI v HR (12 December 2023) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...require their lawyers to obtain valuations of, or to advise them about the values of, the relationship property. 1 Separation and Relationship Property Agreement (6 March 2018) (the agreement). 3 [13] The agreement contained a further lawyer protection clause which read as follows: The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that in executing this Agreement they have not relied on the other parties (sic) legal advisers and they hereby cross indemnify the other party’s legal advis...

7. 25072025-Electoral-Amendment-Bill [pdf, 581 KB]

   ...influencing a person’s choice whether to vote or not, for example. Treating and undue influence 50. The proposed amendments to the offences of treating and undue influence appear consistent with the NZBORA.52 Either the proposals are consistent with protected rights such as s 12, by positively upholding the integrity of the electoral system, or to the extent that they impose limits on protected rights, those limits are justified given (i) the important goal of preserving electoral int...

8. Director of Proceedings v Nelson [2013] NZHRRT 38 [pdf, 275 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2013] NZHRRT 38 Reference No. HRRT 026/2012 UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 BETWEEN DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF AND RUTH NELSON DEFENDANT AT WELLINGTON BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms K Anderson, Member Ms WV Gilchrist, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr A Martin, Director of Proceedings, Plaintiff and Ms H Cook Mr AC Beck for de

9. LCRO 38-2015 PF v MF [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...382/2013 (30 June 2017) at [77]–[79]. 13 [52] It goes without saying that this email would have caused unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to Mr T’s reputation, interests or occupation. [53] In short, Ms GG should have carefully advised her client against expressing her terms for settlement terms in that way. She should have explained the potential dangers of doing so, both for her client and for herself. And, most certainly, she ought not to have se...

10. LCRO 240/2013 TM v DC (8 May 2017) [pdf, 365 KB]

    ...deprived [him] of an entitlement to union membership”. Hearing in person [61] Mr TM indicated that he wished to be heard in person. A hearing took place on 31 March 2017. [62] I record that as well as hearing from Mr TM in person, I have carefully read the complaint and response, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of the application for review. There are no additional issues or questions which in my mind necessitate any further submissions from...