Search Results

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

   ...scope of review [46] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

2. [2025] NZREADT 21 – BS & QS v Upton (16 June 2025) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...was never in his possession and he could not therefore withhold it. It is not open to the Tribunal to review the finding of the Committee that he did withhold the report in breach of his professional obligations.13 Mr Upton could have filed an appeal if he wanted to challenge findings of the Committee critical to the conclusion as to unsatisfactory conduct, but he did not do so. [32] Mr Upton also raises as an issue as to whether the cancellation of the S & P agreement was c...

3. LCRO 32/2024 MP v LG (21 January 2025) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...scope of review [39] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

4. Modifying-the-Sentencing-Reinstating-Three-Strikes-Amendment-Bill_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 876 KB]

   ...Stage-2: 1,241 12/12/12 and reactivating Stage-3: 145 warnings Stage-4+: 26 35 Additional costs stemming from increased use of court resources (e.g. longer sentencing hearings), possible guilty plea impacts, and increased litigation such as criminal appeals, have not been modelled due to time constraints. 36 I accept that court resources will be under additional pressure in the short term. However, there are a number of ongoing initiatives, such as Te Au Reka (Caseflow Management) w...

5. Ministry-of-Justice-Annual-Report-2024-25.pdf [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   Annual Report 2024/25 Ministry of Justice | Te Tāhū o te Ture Including the Annual Report for The Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana: Te Tari Whakatau And Ministers’ reports on Non-Departmental Appropriations: Minister of Justice (Vote Justice), Minister for Courts (Vote Courts), Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti (Vote Te Arawhiti) E.64, B14 AR (2025) In accordance with the Public Finance Act 1989, this

6. D v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2022] CEIT-2020-0014 [pdf, 619 KB]

   ...case. I do not consider that the ruling in Sleight applies to this case. [104] There is no suggestion that WD would not consider this matter finalised based on what I order IAG to pay for his property under the Policy, and subject to his right to appeal this decision. That is, it is WD who seeks a lump sum to finalise his claims against IAG once and for all, as opposed to wanting to hold IAG liable for further as yet unclaimed payments as the repair progresses. My decision is a judi...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 230 Textile Bonding Ltd v Jones [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...the Registrar is to be pursuant to a judgment of the Court, this will be deferred for 15 working days after delivery of the Court’s judgment to allow the issue of a continuing stay to be considered in the event that either party may seek to appeal the judgment of the Court. GL Colgan Chief Judge Judgment signed at 3.15 pm on Thursday 5 December 2013

8. Coleman v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 32 [pdf, 10 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000117 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 32 BETWEEN ROBYN COLEMAN AND PATRICIA BAMFORD Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND RONALD ANTHONY URLICH AND JANICE WILMA URLICH (Bankrupt and Removed) Second Respondents AND GRAHAM HAYHOW (Deceased and Removed) Third Respondent AND JOHANNES LAURENTIUS APERS Fourth Respondent Hearing: 19 and 26 July 2012 Appearances: T J Rainey and J Wood fo

9. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Misa [2018] NZREADT 37 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...provide that Mr Misa is to complete the specified further education within six months of the date of the Tribunal’s decision. [5] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. __________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson __________________ Ms C Sandelin Member...

10. [2017] NZEnvC 093 Golden Bay Grandstand v Heritage New Zealand [pdf, 48 KB]

    BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC O~ 3 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 of an appeal under section 58 of the Act GOLDEN BAY GRANDSTAND COMMUNITY TRUST (INCORPORATED) (ENV-2016-WLG-000065) Appellant HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA Respondent of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an application under section 316 of the Act GOLDEN BAY GRANDSTAN...