Search Results

1. EV v IG LCRO 111/2013 (8 September 2015) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...threshold required for further action. A history of driving with excess breath alcohol and/or some other surrounding circumstance would usually be necessary to warrant further disciplinary action. [66] In Bolton v The Law Society the English Court of Appeal made an observation similar to that made by the High Court of Australia in Ziems, and added that the balancing exercise was to be made “… by the Tribunal as an informed and expert body, on all the facts of the case”.26 [...

2. LCRO 168/2016 WT v MD (30 May 2018) [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...the MD Group could be considered to be somewhat unique and it is not surprising that the potential defence was identified by the Group’s own insurer who would be thoroughly familiar with the law surrounding insurance claims. [92] The Court of Appeal has stated that a lawyer is not liable:22 for mistake in a nice and difficult point of law but he must measure up to the degree of professional competence which would be exercised by the reasonably competent and careful solicitor in th...

3. [2021] NZEnvC 162 Public and Population Health Unit of the Northland District Health Board v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 379 KB]

   Public and Population Health Unit of Northland District Health Board v Northland Regional Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2021] NZEnvC 162 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) AND Topic 8 (Agrichemicals) of the Proposed Northland Regional Plan BETWEEN PUBLIC AND POPULATION HEALTH UNIT OF THE NORTHLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD (ENV-20...

4. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Mr U [2024] NZLCDT 4 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...incorporated law firm of regulated services, to comply with a 6 Even if the evidence was otherwise inadmissible, the Tribunal may exercise its discretion to admit such evidence under s 239 of the Act in the interests of justice. As noted by the Court of Appeal in Deliu v National Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society [2015] NZCA 399 (at n 31) “The centrality of the evidence to the case and the effects of an inability to cross-examine may be material considerations in its...

5. E35 Peter Kensington - Landscape - EIC - Council [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...prior to joining the Auckland Council. From November 2012 to October 2017, I was a Principal Planner in the Hearings and Resolutions team of the Council’s Resource Consents Department. In that role, I was responsible for the case management of appeals, direct referrals, judicial reviews, objections, hearings and independent duty and hearings commissioner processes in relation to applications for resource consent(s) associated with the geographic area generally defined by the then...

6. [2011] NZEmpC 128 McKean v Ports of Auckland Ltd [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...that they were acting in a union capacity at the time. [26] Analogies can usefully be drawn to the cases relating to disciplinary proceedings for conduct outside of working hours. In Smith v Christchurch Press Company Ltd 11 the Court of Appeal declined to categorise conduct outside of work that might lead to disciplinary proceedings (noting that situations are variable) but held that there must be “a clear relationship between the conduct and the employment”. The Court o...

7. Deputy Registrar - Oharotu 4 (2010) 7 Taitokerau MB 234 (7 TTK 234) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...freehold parcel. The order was registered in the Land Transfer Office and a provisional title, GSPR 6C/122, issued on 9 September 1997. 7 Taitokerau MB 241 [30] The appellant accepted that the Court had laid off the roadway but argued on appeal that it was not comprised in a “separate instrument of title” in terms of s 427(1) and that subsequent purchasers of land to which the roadway gave access therefore did not receive any interests in the roadway and were not entit...

8. SW v Standards Committee LCRO 371/2013 (14 September 2015) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgment for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. [22] In Deliu v Hong it was noted that a review is:1 … much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching hi...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v PL [2016] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...disclose documents to O. He subsequently lied to the WH Tribunal. The truth did not reveal itself until it was discovered after the claim before the WH Tribunal had been determined. [85] We adopt the remarks of Katz J in her decision on I’s appeal from the costs decision of the WH Tribunal which she made at para 57 and which we summarise: (a) Discovery of the documents would likely have seriously undermined the claim before the WH Tribunal; 21 (b) The apartments had been...

10. Fehling v Ministry of Health (Strike-Out of Second Defendant) [2016] NZHRRT 29 [pdf, 107 KB]

    ...and 105 of the Human Rights Act. Section 105 requires the Tribunal “to act according to the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities”. That section applies, with necessary modifications, to decisions of this Court on appeal against a decision of the Tribunal: s123(5). [46] The Tribunal has an express power to dismiss proceedings, if satisfied that they are frivolous, vexatious or not brought in good faith: s115. As Mr Laurenson points out, the Tribunal del...