Примеры использования New zealand courts на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The New Zealand courts operate on an adversarial system.
International treaties could be invoked in New Zealand courts.
The New Zealand courts had not yet produced any case law on paid maternity leave.
The essence of the authors' claim is that all New Zealand courts are biased against them.
New Zealand courts had taken international human rights treaties, including the Convention, into account when determining cases.
All claimants had a right of appeal to a dedicated appeal authority andcould make further appeals in the New Zealand courts.
Non-uniformity arises where the New Zealand courts consider local conditions to warrant it or where the law has been codified by New Zealand statute.
In addition to the specific statutory requirements for consultation across a wide range of laws, the New Zealand courts have also established fundamental principles or elements of consultation.
Further, New Zealand courts have a strong presumption that all legislation must be interpreted consistently with international human rights obligations.
First, although the Treaty of Waitangi does not provide directly enforceable rights, the New Zealand courts have shown a proactive approach to interpreting and applying the principles of the Treaty where these are included in specific legislation.
The New Zealand courts do, however, cite the Convention, and other international human rights instruments, most often in cases that involve difficult or novel issues.
In practice, those dual designation systems might create complications,as in cases where evidence used for the Security Council designation was inadmissible in New Zealand courts, or where the courts might decide that funds germane to a Security Council designation had been wrongly impounded.
New Zealand courts have jurisdiction in relation to conduct that occurred wholly outside New Zealand if the alleged offender is present in New Zealand section 9A.
The jurisdiction provisions are the same as those for hijacking, with the New Zealand courts having extraterritorial jurisdiction over an alleged offender who either is a New Zealand national or resident or is present in New Zealand section 92.
New Zealand courts can also order a stay in proceedings where there has been a delay of such a length that it constitutes a breach of section 25(b) of the BORA the right to be tried without undue delay.
In part to ensure that New Zealand would never become a safe haven for the perpetrators of those crimes,the Act gave the New Zealand courts universal jurisdiction over the crimes covered by the Statute and provided limited retroactive application for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity.
The New Zealand courts had developed a number of requirements for the recognition of customary law on a par with foreign law, for example the use of appropriately qualified experts.
The authors further claim that they have not pursued available court remedies in respect of their claim to be registered as legal aid lawyers, their eventual complaint againstthe WDLS decision and their eventual claim for compensation from the State, because the New Zealand courts are biased against them.
The Act gives New Zealand courts universal jurisdiction over these crimes, allowing for prosecution in New Zealand regardless of where the offending might occur.
The Crimes Amendment Act also broadens the offence of participating in a criminal group to cover groups that operate transnationally and expanded the jurisdiction provisions for offences that fall within the Convention andProtocol to allow prosecution in New Zealand courts in a wider range of circumstances where the offence is committed wholly outside New Zealand territory.
Nevertheless, the New Zealand courts had established a number of judicial remedies for victims of violations of the Covenant including monetary compensation, stays of prosecution and exclusion of evidence.
Section 349A provides that, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference in the 1965 Act to New Zealand, New Zealand ministers,officials and the New Zealand courts and judiciary shall be read as a reference to the Cook Islands, Cook Islands ministers, officials and the courts established and the judiciary appointed pursuant to legislation in force in the Cook Islands.
While the New Zealand courts had yet to determine whether they could issue formal declarations that legislation was inconsistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights Act, the Supreme Court had affirmed the practice of informally"indicating" the existence of such inconsistencies.
For the time being, however, the New Zealand courts had discussed the issue but had not yet determined whether there should be a formal power to issue declarations that legislation was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.
As noted above, the New Zealand courts have jurisdiction to try a person for such an offence where the person to be charged is a New Zealand citizen, or is present in New Zealand, or the act or omission constituting the offence is alleged to have occurred in New Zealand or on board a ship or aircraft registered in New Zealand. .
However, section 9(1)states that New Zealand courts do not have jurisdiction where both the place of take-off and the place of actual landing of the aircraft(not being a New Zealand aircraft) are in the territory of the country in which the aircraft is registered, or, in the case of an aircraft that is subject to joint or international registration, in the territory of one of the countries having an interest in the aircraft, unless one of four exceptions applies.
The New Zealand Court of Appeal, in fact, was not the final appellate Court in the jurisdiction and the Privy Council in London would not permit a more liberal interpretation of the contract.
If the adoption application was lodged in a New Zealand court, then the adoptive parents from overseas would be expected to appear in that court. .
In Williams v Simpson(No. 5)(case no. 30), the New Zealand court held that a finding on location of the habitual residence would largely be based on the facts of each case.
After the High Court had rejected the seller's claim, the case was heard by the New Zealand Court of Appeal.