Search Results

1. LCRO 107/2023 NC v PJ (30 November 2023) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...review generally [30] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … 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...

2. Cummings v KAM Transport Limited [2025] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...may result in significant damage to the privacy interests of an individual.5 [23] What those “certain circumstances” might be, however, is yet to be addressed in case law under the PA. We note that in Peters v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal considered disclosures within an agency would not sensibly attract liability for breach of privacy in tort in circumstances where the personal information had been lawfully received by the agency, disclosures were made in good faith...

3. 8 October 2024 MEP King Shag & IBA Preliminiary Issue [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay (Inc) v Marlborough District Council The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Marlborough District Council Environmental Defence Society Incorporated v Marlborough District Council Appeal By Submitter On Proposed Policy Statement Or Plan pursuant to Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 Appeal By Submitter On Proposed Policy Statement Or Plan pursuant to Clause 14 of the First Schedu...

4. [2024] NZEnvC 148 Marlborough District Council v Gifford [pdf, 352 KB]

   ...that being so, it poses a difficult question as to what amount of those costs the respondents should have to contribute. [47] The Council in response referred us to the High Court’s decision in Gifford v Marlborough District Council,17 an appeal from the Environment Court. The High Court confirmed the Environment Court’s jurisdiction to impose the relevant enforcement orders. [48] The High Court addressed the question of jurisdiction to impose Orders B3, B12 and B13 as...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 10  DQJ v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...(a) whether there is a serious question to be tried in relation to the claim of unjustified dismissal; and, if so, (b) whether there is a serious question to be tried in relation to the claim of permanent reinstatement. [7] As the Court of Appeal made clear in NZ Tax Refunds Ltd v Brooks Homes Ltd, a serious question to be tried is one that is not vexatious and frivolous.6 Once that (relatively low) threshold is overcome, the merits of the case (insofar as they can be ascertain...

6. Puohotaua v Paranihi - Rakato and Part Rakato B Maori Reservation (2024) 487 Aotea MB 53 [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...appointment until 2023. If she had known about the appointment she submits that she would have objected. No reasons were given as to why she would have objected. 10 Henderson v Brooking – Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17) at [28]. 11 Section 240(1)(b)(i) and (iv) of the Act. I note that s240(1)(b)(i) of the Act deliberately uses the word “repeatedly” suggesting that any evidence of refusing or failing to act, must be more than a one off. The...

7. LCRO 46/2025 WP v HJ and NB (12 August 2025) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...scope of review [26] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … 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...

8. Gillies v Lucas - Waipuka No C No 1 and Others (2025) 124 Tākitimu MB 51 (124 TKT 51) [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...288(2)(b) requires a ‘sufficient degree’ of owner support for the partition. There is no pre-determined figure amounting to a ‘sufficient degree of support’.12 12 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428) at [51]. 124 Tākitimu MB 61 Sufficiency of support is not simply a matter of arithmetic.13 Rather, it is assessed on a case- by-case basis with regard to the nature and importance of the matter.14 On this point, the M...

9. LCRO 21/2025 CB v AC (28 August 2025) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...of these in due course. What is the nature and scope of the review? [28] The High Court has said of the process of review under the Act that: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 tha...

10. Staples - Omahu 4A2B (2025) 125 Tākitimu MB 261 (125 TKT 261) [pdf, 413 KB]

    ...question was owned by 482 landowners. Forty-one owners representing 35.35% of the shares in the land supported the partition, while 56 owners holding 7.47% of the shares 17 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428) at [51]. 18 Neal – Taiharuru 4C3C (2016) 132 Taitokerau MB 97 (132 TTK 97) at [30]–[31]. 19 Reid, above n 14, at 172. 20 Whaanga, above n 17, at [38] (footnotes omitted), citing Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, ss 287–28...