Search Results

1. AAV and AAW v ZZG [2012] NZDT 10 (28 June 2012) [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...from a paddock in which car wrecks were stored. The gate and surrounding fences were tidy and secure, and the cattle had not lifted the gate or pushed through it. The escape therefore did not occur as a result of poor fences but as a result of human error. That error was made either by ZZM or by a visitor to his property who was looking at the wrecks in the paddock. If ZZM had left the gate open, he would be liable. If a third party did so, ZZM disputes that he should be liable....

2. 2017 NZSSAA 009 (31 March 2017) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...New Zealand from Yugoslavia in XXXX. She received an Invalid’s Benefit from 16 September 2009 which was transferred to a Supported Living Payment from 2013. [5] Ms XXXX said that she was looking for a correct and proper forum, such as the Human Rights Commission, to address her concerns. However she accepted that many of the issues she raised did not relate to the question of the $180 in issue. She and Mr Ellis accepted that the only issue for this Authority to determine was...

3. BORA Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...claims. 5. Similarly, in so far as the exclusion of subsequent challenge could be said to limit the claimant’s rights under s 20 of the Bill of Rights Act, [7] it would likewise be justified under s 5 on the same basis. 6. The United Nations Human Rights Committee upheld a similar exclusion under the 1992 Fisheries Settlement, which was similarly an incident of a negotiated settlement, as consistent with the right of access to the courts as affirmed by art 14(1) of the International...

4. BORA Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...Bill of Rights Act. Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of claims. 8.Any limit on minority rights under s 20 of the Bill of Rights Act would be justified on the same basis. 9.The United Nations Human Rights Committee upheld a similar exclusion under the 1992 Fisheries Settlement. The Committee found that the exclusion was consistent with articles 14 and 27 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which are comparable...

5. BORA Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...freedom of expression 6. Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. The freedom of expression is “as wide as human thought and imagination” [1] and includes any activity which conveys or attempts to convey a meaning. [2] 7. Legislative provisions limiting a particular right or freedom may nevertheless be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act...

6. BORA Statutes Amendment Bill [pdf, 382 KB]

   ...instructions, we attach copies of this opinion for referral to the Minister of Justice and the Associate Minister of Justice (Hon Rick Barker), who is also the Minister in charge of the Bill. Stuart Beresford Senior Legal Adviser Bill of Rights/Human Rights Team Allison Bennett Principal Legal Adviser Office of Legal Counsel cc Minister of Justice Associate Minister of Justice (Hon Rick Barker) For your information Footnote 1 See Moonen v Film Literature Board of Review [2000]...

7. BORA Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...far as the exclusion of subsequent challenge could be said to limit the claimant's rights under s 20 of the Bill of Rights Act [3], it would likewise be justified under s 5 on the same basis. 6. In particular, I note that the United Nations Human Rights Committee upheld a similar exclusion under the 1992 Fisheries Settlement, which was similarly an incident of a negotiated settlement, as consistent with the right of access to the courts as affirmed by art 14(1) of the International...

8. BORA Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Act Bill (No 2) [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...the analysis set out above, we have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act. Michael Petherick Ministerial Advice Manager Office of Legal Counsel Stuart Beresford Manager, Human Rights/Bill of Rights Team Public Law Group Footnotes 1 See Franic v Wilson [1993] 1 NZLR 318 (HC) and Upton v Green (No 2) [1996] 3 HRNZ 179 2 Chisholm v Auckland City Council (CA/02, 29 November 2002), paragraph 32 In addition...

9. BORA Gangs and Organised Crime Bill [pdf, 355 KB]

   ...14 of the Bill of Rights Act. Section 14 reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and in part information and opinions of any kind in any form." 10. The right is "as wide as human thought and imagination"[1]. It extends to non-verbal conduct and so would extend to signs and other expressive structures.[2] As the proposed amendment has the potential to apply to structures that convey meaning, even if that meaning...

10. BORA Copyright (Artist’s Resale Right) Amendment Bill [pdf, 302 KB]

    ...CONCLUSION 18. Based on the analysis set out above, we have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Jeff Orr Chief Legal Advisor Office of Legal Counsel Stuart Beresford Acting Manager Bill of Rights/Human Rights Team 1 Butlers The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: A Commentary (Wellington: 2005) at 13.27. 2 [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038. 3 See Moonen v Film Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9 and R v Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103. In addition...