Search Results

1. Wellington Standards Committee 1 v Mason [2025] NZLCDT 19 (2 April 2025) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...this matter, before swearing his affidavit, despite the LCRO decision having been available at least the previous week. [20] Also, in terms of previous appearances before the Tribunal, Ms Mason was before the Tribunal in 2015 as a result of her appeal against a refusal of the New Zealand Law Society to issue her with a practising certificate. That refusal had its genesis in the liquidation of the company under which Ms Mason had operated her practice. It had been liquidated by t...

2. Auckland Standards Committee v Murray [2015] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...cancel her fee. [d] We further note the tragic circumstances of this man’s death, and its reported effects upon Ms Murray, were relied on by her as a mitigating feature in her District Court sentencing. [22] All three of these decisions were appealed by Ms Murray to the Legal Complaints Review Officer (“LCRO”) and were upheld in all but minor respects. Ms Murray’s conduct in attempting to delay or thwart the process of review by the LCRO followed a similar pattern of la...

3. [2017] NZEnvC 032 South Epsom Planning Group Incorporated v Auckland Council [pdf, 32 MB]

   IBEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Court: Parties: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2016] NZEnvC 0 3 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of appeals pursuant to clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Act SOUTH EPSOM PLANNING GROUP INCORPORATED AND THREE KINGS UNITED GROUP INCORPORATED (ENV-2016-AKL-01 ) NGATI TE ATA WAIOHUA AND NGATI TAMAOHO TRUST (ENV-2015-AKL -158) Appellants AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent FLETCHER RESIDENTIAL LIMITED Applica...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 203 Director-General of Conservation v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...v MDC & The New Zealand King Salmon Co Limited – Consent Order IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 203 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND appeals under s120 of the Act BETWEEN DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION (ENV-2022-CHC-67) AND MCGUINNESS INSTITUTE LIMITED (ENV-2022-CHC-68) Appellants AND MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL AND THE NEW ZEALAND KING SALMON CO LIMITED R...

5. [2011] NZEmpC 148 Service and Food Workers Union PSA v Pact Group [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...not met. [48] It is not appropriate to read this extended meaning into s 82. Indeed, it would be inconsistent with the scheme of this part of the Act to do so. In reaching this conclusion, I am guided very much by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc (No 2) 10 . In that case, the Chief Judge held that there is no lockout in terms of s 82 unless the demand made by the employer is lawful, that is one...

6. Edwards v Tatere - Mangatainoka No 1BC No2C (2012) 15 Takitimu MB 204 (15 TKT 204) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...submit that they remain confident in their ability to perform their duties as Trustees, despite the accusations and assumptions made against them. Legal Principles [51] The Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Māori Land Court 5 the Court of Appeal confirmed that this Court has extensive supervisory powers in relation to trusts. Blanchard J noted at pp 9-10 that the Māori Land Court: “…is expressly given in s237 in respect of any trust to which Part XII applies ‘all...

7. TC & TD v NV LCRO 255 / 2011 (14 January 2013) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...maximum amount that the Tribunal could order. It also ordered that the claim by the company for $1,537.50 for the unpaid ground rental be off set against that payment, thereby effectively upholding the counterclaim by CBW. [20] TC lodged an appeal against the decision of the Disputes Tribunal in the District Court in September 2010 which was beyond the statutory period for appeal. He then compiled his complaint against NV and forwarded this to the firm with a request that the fi...

8. Keven Investments Limited v Arthur [2011] NZWHT Auckland 45 [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...Young, a professional man building a house who got appropriate workman to do the physical jobs was not a contractor of developer. To make him such would in the Robertson J’s opinion, “miss the import of the distinction which the Court of Appeal was drawing in Mt Albert Borough Council”.6 This conclusion was reached even though Mr Young had some experience as a developer. [18] Mr and Mrs Montgomery’s motivation in building this dwelling was to build a home in which...

9. LCRO 126-2017 PC v The Committee [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...scope of review [22] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:6 … 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 tha...

10. AB v DE & Ors LCRO 75/2014 (11 July 2016) [pdf, 90 KB]

    ...decisions of this Office have made it clear that it is “improper to use the complaints process as a means to undermine or attack a decision of another Court or Tribunal”.9 [72] The proper route for challenge of a decision of another Tribunal is appeal. This is further recognised in s 138(1)(f) of the Act which states that a Standards Committee may resolve to take no further action where there is an adequate right of appeal that the complainant could exercise. Where proceedings are b...