Telecommunications Act 2001

Networks - Maintenance of networks - Rights of entry to land in respect of existing works and existing lines

127: Evidentiary presumption

You could also call this:

"A special document can be used as proof in disputes about equipment or lines on someone's land."

Illustration for Telecommunications Act 2001

If you are in a dispute about some equipment or a line on someone's land, a special document from a network operator can be used as evidence. This document must have the network operator's official seal and say when the equipment or line was put there. It can say the equipment or line was put up before 1 January 1988 under the authority of the Post Office Act 1959, or that the line was constructed before 1 April 1989 under the authority of this Act, which is the Telecommunications Act 2001. You can use this document in court and it is considered proof unless someone can show it is wrong. The document is like a certificate and it helps to settle disputes about when things were built or installed.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM127433.


Previous

126: Conditions of entry to land, or

"Rules for entering private land to work on telecommunications"


Next

128: Request for removal or trimming of trees, or

"What to do if a tree is in the way of a phone or internet line"

Part 4Networks
Maintenance of networks: Rights of entry to land in respect of existing works and existing lines

127Evidentiary presumption

  1. A certificate under the seal of a network operator containing a statement that a specified instrument, machinery, engine, structure, or other work was erected or constructed before 1 January 1988 under the authority of the Post Office Act 1959 (or any Act repealed by that Act), or that a line was constructed before 1 April 1989 under the authority of this Act, is admissible in evidence in any proceedings and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, constitutes proof of that statement.

Compare