Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mafart and Prieur v Television New Zealand Ltd; Eastern Services Ltd v No 68 Ltd; C v Complaints Assessment Committee; Condon v R; Shirley v Wairarapa District Health Board; Steele and Roberts v Serepisos; Chirnside v Fay; Chamberlains v Lai; Secretary for Justice (as the New Zealand Central Authority on behalf of T J) v H; Henkel KgaA v ...
Make It 16 was formed out of the New Zealand Youth Parliament in September 2019 to campaign for suffrage to be granted to 16- and 17-year-olds. [8] [9] When the youth-led campaign launched, its co-director Gina Dao-McLay said that "politicians were blocking the voices of 16 and 17-year-olds even though they could work fulltime, consent to sex, drive a car and own guns". [9]
The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's earlier award of $25,000 in general damages, as MAF owed a duty of care to the agriculture industry, and the public in general and not to Bell-Booth. This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub .
This page was last edited on 13 January 2025, at 18:13 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
The court also heard testimony from Chun-Chieh (Jason) Li, who had briefly employed Cao at his Vision Kitchens joinery business when he arrived in New Zealand around March 2023. [ 39 ] [ 40 ] On 30 October, the court heard evidence from Police detective inspector Joel Syme about Bao's cellphone.
During the trial, The New Zealand Herald and Stuff ran competing podcasts and live blogs covering developments in the courtroom. These podcasts climbed to the top three on Spotify's podcast rankings for New Zealand. The court proceedings attracted large numbers of spectators in the public gallery.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand acknowledged a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and overturned his conviction on 8 June 2022. [ 4 ] In 2024, two police officers and a prosecutor were charged with perverting the course of justice, and a reward of $100,000 was offered for information leading to the conviction of the real murderer.
Saunders & Co v Bank of New Zealand; Saunderson v Purchase; Schmidt v Holland; Seales v Attorney-General; Shivas v Bank of New Zealand; Shotter v Westpac Banking Corp; Slater Wilmhurst Ltd v Crown Group Custodian Ltd; Soccer Nelson Inc v Soccer NZ Inc; Stringer v Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co