Search Results

1. LCRO 13/2019 RA v LO (23 September 2019) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...scope of review [28] 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 tha...

2. JR v ST LCRO 57/2015 (2 December 2016) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...LCRO on review [27] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:8 … 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...

3. LCRO 25/2016 RZ v LB [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...scope of review [31] 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...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 210 MAS Zengrange (NZ) Ltd v HDT Ltd [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...direction requiring someone to produce documents to it. 6 [2013] NZEmpC 150. 7 [2006] ERNZ 221. 8 [2005] ERNZ 471. That judgment is currently the subject of an application for leave to appeal although I do not understand the particular point at issue in this case to be the subject of the intended appeal. That judgment is Aarts v Barnardos New Zealand. 9 In that case the Authority refused to issue a summons to the Commi...

5. Brown - Motatau 2 Section 23A1B [2019] Chief Judge's MB 311 (2019 CJ 311) [pdf, 339 KB]

   ...recognising the right to use and occupy a garage in favour of the deceased’s children.6 3 Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy - Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 67 (2010 APPEAL 167) at [61]. 4 Karanga v Karanga – Mangamuka East H2 (2006) 112 Whangarei 23 (112 WH 23). 5 At [15]. 6 At [16]. 2019 Chief Judge’s MB 321 The argument in that case centred on the rights of occupation and...

6. Horan – Hiwarau C (2013) 70 Waiariki 61 (70 WAR 61) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...is a sufficient degree of support for the application among the owners, having regard to the nature and importance of the matter. This issue is problematic. [35] In 2011, the Māori Appellate Court considered the approach to this issue.8 The appeal involved two blocks of land, Tutuotekaha 1B5B1 and Tutuotekaha 1B5B2. During the 1940’s to the 1950’s, the appellant’s father cleared and used the land. Without development finance, however, he was forced to leave and the land wa...

7. LCRO 77/2020 MP v RJ (30 July 2020) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...scope of review [23] 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 tha...

8. AT v ZH & Ors LCRO 127/2013 (26 March 2014) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...complaints (the first decision). [7] No review was sought of the first decision, and [Firm A] obtained judgment against Mr AT by default [date] in the District Court proceeding. Mr AT then successfully applied to set that judgment aside, and [Firm A] appealed that decision to the High Court. [8] The High Court dismissed the appeal in its judgment [date], said that the issue of quantum of the fees had not been determined, and left it open to [Firm A] to consider what recovery st...

9. Body Corporate 180379 v Auckland Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...one of the units was statute barred because an assignment of the 2002 Act claim had been ineffective and the assignees (now owners) had not made a new claim prior to the expiry of the limitation period. The Body Corporate and affected unit owner appealed. On 30 March 2012, Fogarty J granted the appeal and set aside our determination.1 [16] In his judgment, Fogarty J observed that there was no evidence that the 2002 Act claims had ever been withdrawn. His Honour noted that t...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 158 Sealord Group Ltd v Pickering [pdf, 123 KB]

    ...Sealord made two Calderbank offers dated 27 August 2014 and 9 September 2014 respectively. Mr Kiely submitted that in neither case did the remedies awarded to Mr Pickering exceed the amount offered to settle. Mr Kiely noted that while the Court of Appeal had concluded that the normal effect of a successful Calderbank offer was to reverse the costs position, it was Sealord’s submission in the present case that no order should be made in relation to costs