Search Results

1. Mullane v Attorney-General (Request for Documents) [2020] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 621 KB]

   ...following comments by way of assistance: [10.1] The order made by the Tribunal at [117] of its decision prohibiting search of the Tribunal file and directing that Mr Mullane and the Police be notified of any request to search the file was sufficient to protect the evidence on the Tribunal’s file. [10.2] In any event the Public Records Act 2005 appeared to prohibit the removal or destruction of a judicial record. 4 [10.3] It was unclear whether Mr Mullane intended his application...

2. 20240624-Education-and-Training-Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...subject to a property order, or personal order that reflects adversely on their competence to manage their own affairs in relation to their property, or capacity to make or communicate decisions relating to any particular aspect(s) of their personal care and welfare, under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1998. 24. We have previously considered such limits on s 19(1) justified because they are rationally connected to the important objective of ensuring that only thos...

3. BORA-Advice-Education-and-Training-Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...subject to a property order, or personal order that reflects adversely on their competence to manage their own affairs in relation to their property, or capacity to make or communicate decisions relating to any particular aspect(s) of their personal care and welfare, under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1998. 24. We have previously considered such limits on s 19(1) justified because they are rationally connected to the important objective of ensuring that only those pe...

4. [2024] NZEnvC 130 Yzendoorn v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...[25] A high standard must be met to justify the award of costs against a public body. Unless the public body has failed to perform its duties or it has acted unreasonably, the standard will not be met. [26] Justice Cooke held in Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd that the underlying reason for the high standard is as follows: 14 When a decision-making body exercises statutory powers, it may be appropriate for it to appear and address evidence and submi...

5. UI v T Ltd [2025] NZDT 11 (27 January 2025) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...bar. 11. The Court explained that the "proportionality test" may be "cross-checked" against the "punitive purpose test" – i.e. whether the predominant purpose of the secondary obligation is to punish rather than to protect legitimate performance interests. However, the Court described the tests as "two sides of the same coin". 12. UI submits that the fine of $65.00 is disproportionate to the actual parking fees that would have applied, which...

6. OIA-107110_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...the procurement process. I can advise that Te Au Reka will be holding primarily court information. The judiciary are responsible for, and control, court information. The judiciary are thus responsible for determining matters relating to the custody, protection and use of court information, supported by the Ministry of Justice. The judiciary require Te Au Reka to have appropriate safeguards to protect the court record from illegal access (e.g., cyber-attacks), and there must be appropriate...

7. Wentzel v Collie [2012] NZWHT Auckland 15 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...as a result of the house leaking. WAS MS COLLIE ACTING AS A DEVELOPER? [63] Ms Brebner and Mr Wentzel claim that Ms Collie was acting as developer in respect of the house. They claim that she owed a developer’s non-delegable duty of care to future purchasers and that this duty was breached when the house was built with defects. [64] The rationale for the imposition of a duty of care on developers was discussed in Body Corporate 188273 v Leuschke Group Architects Lt...

8. FE v MB LCRO 328/2012 (23 February 2015) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...taken a different view of the evidence that was available to the Committee, but have reached the same conclusion as the Committee, namely that there is no jurisdiction to consider the conflict of interest aspect of the complaint. [34] Having carefully considered all of the information available on review, I have identified no reason to interfere with the Committee’s discretion, or its decision in respect of the allegations of negligence and failure to produce information. The p...

9. National Standards Committee 1 v Palmer [2023] NZLCDT 13 (28 April 2023) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...Purposes and principles of penalty [13] It is now well established that the purpose of penalties imposed in professional disciplinary proceedings is not punitive. Rather, it reflects the purposes of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA): the protection of the public, the upholding of professional standards and of the confidence that the public has in the legal profession. [14] As well as that, an assessment of proportionate penalty includes consideration of the following:...

10. LCRO 88/2023 VG v FB and SS (30 July 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

    ...instructions to contact his former partner’s lawyer. This nuanced approach reflected a strategic decision to acknowledge the application without committing to a detailed response to it, while still ensuring that preliminary measures were taken to protect Mr VG’s interests. [65] When it became apparent that Mr VG would need to file a response to the application filed in the Family Court, he endeavoured to attend to that himself. [66] His attempts to do so were unsuccessful. [67] A...