Search Results

1. LCRO 130/2022 FN v EO (31 October 2023) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...Mr FN and counsel, Mr JL. Ms EO did not exercise the opportunity to attend. Nature and scope of review [53] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:22 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It invol...

2. Otene – Tauhara Māori Reservation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168 (58 TPO 168) [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...pursuant to .439 (7) appoints the following as additional to the present surviving trustees: Leslie Rehua ~all Solomon Rutene Kuti William Tahau Jack Isaacs Barney Northcroft Adam iVarbrick. In doing so, and in the event of there being an appeal. I record that I would not have appointed additional trustees had the decision of this Court been to make the orders sought, and then for the reason that as some of the abovenamed were "objectors," their appointment may not ha...

3. 25072025-Electoral-Amendment-Bill [pdf, 581 KB]

   ...subsequently enacted and then repealed), addressed the reasons why justification could not be established.7 These reasons were subsequently endorsed by the High Court in Taylor v Attorney-General (and this aspect of the judgment was not challenged on appeal).8 The principal reason may be said to be that a blanket disqualification “disenfranchises in an irrational 2 Electoral Act 1993 ss 80(1)(d), 86A-86E. 3 Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990...

4. LCRO 7/2024 SO v EJ and QJ (30 July 2025) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...letter (21 February 2024) Mr SO had not made any distributions of Estate funds. Nature and scope of review [55] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:40 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It i...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 168 Jenner v Corrections Association of New Zealand Incf [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...sent by CANZ’s lawyers. It submits that these documents set out the particulars that Mr Jenner is required to answer and the just cause for his removal. [81] Mr Roberts submits that the Court should have regard to decisions of the Court of Appeal in relation to strike notices16 where elucidation was permitted without requiring that the time for any notice be restarted. I accept that the letter of 30 July 2025 can be included in the mix in relation to notice. Further, given that...

6. [2025] NZLVT 028 – Edwards v Minister for Land Information (17 June 2025) [pdf, 406 KB]

   ...Minute is dated 14 April 2022 and by this stage it is evident that the Tribunal was becoming concerned at the delays in getting this matter to hearing. The Tribunal noted that it had heard the Middle Hill matter in March 2022 and there was an appeal in relation to Plan Change 25 which was heard by the Environment Court, with a decision still to issue. 17 The parties jointly sought to vacate the hearing date for July 2022, await the decision on Middle Hill and provide a repor...

7. LCRO 68/2024 GRA v ZTV (1 September 2025) [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...made but was declined by the Family Court.6 The Judge did however comment7 that “on the authorities RA’s case is blurred and definitely weak but I could not say that she will undoubtedly lose or that a loss is inevitable”. [16] Ms VW (BRA) appealed the judgment to the High Court where they were successful.8 [17] Her Honour also ordered:9 [redacted] [18] Mr ZTV issued invoices totalling $55,986.35 for his attendances to date. Ms RA’s complaints [19] Ms RA has been ad...

8. Wellington Standards Committee v Sawyer [2013] NZLCDT 47 [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...the third charge. [3] At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision as to all matters. Background 1. July 2004 misconduct [4] This matter, which has been the subject of considerable litigation (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions having been delivered) arose when the practitioner represented clients in respect of the sale of a portion of their rural property. In 2001 the property had been subdivided and as part of that subdivision...

9. Regulatory Impact Statement Review of aspects of the bail system [pdf, 268 KB]

   1 Regulatory Impact Statement Bail Amendment Bill Agency disclosure statement This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was prepared by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). It provides an analysis of options to address a range of problems identified in the Government‟s Review of Aspects of the Bail System. Problems relate to: bail for defendants charged with serious class A drug, violent and sexual offences and young defendants under 20; perceptions that bail may be granted in return

10. Lowe and Ors as Trustees of the Vivienne Hicks Family Trust v Morrison [2011] NZWHT Auckland 27 [pdf, 263 KB]

    ...prepared by Mr Morrison. The Council has denied liability and submitted that the plans and specifications were adequate and up to the standard of the day. [43] When considering Council liability for issuing building consents the Court of Appeal in Sunset Terraces 3 upheld Heath J‟s finding that Councils did not need to ensure manufacturers 2 Sunset Terraces above n1 and North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 1...