Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 130 Yzendoorn v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...[25] A high standard must be met to justify the award of costs against a public body. Unless the public body has failed to perform its duties or it has acted unreasonably, the standard will not be met. [26] Justice Cooke held in Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd that the underlying reason for the high standard is as follows: 14 When a decision-making body exercises statutory powers, it may be appropriate for it to appear and address evidence and submi...

2. UI v T Ltd [2025] NZDT 11 (27 January 2025) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...bar. 11. The Court explained that the "proportionality test" may be "cross-checked" against the "punitive purpose test" – i.e. whether the predominant purpose of the secondary obligation is to punish rather than to protect legitimate performance interests. However, the Court described the tests as "two sides of the same coin". 12. UI submits that the fine of $65.00 is disproportionate to the actual parking fees that would have applied, which...

3. OIA-124266.pdf [pdf, 2.2 MB]

   ...Copies of these documents are attached in Appendix 1 of this letter and my decision on their release is outlined in the table below. Please note, some information has been withheld under the following sections of the Act: • Section 9(2)(a) - to protect the privacy of natural persons; • Section 9(2)(f)(iv) – to maintain the constitutional conventions that protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers and officials; and • Section 9(2)(g)(i) – to maintain the effe...

4. OIA-107110_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...the procurement process. I can advise that Te Au Reka will be holding primarily court information. The judiciary are responsible for, and control, court information. The judiciary are thus responsible for determining matters relating to the custody, protection and use of court information, supported by the Ministry of Justice. The judiciary require Te Au Reka to have appropriate safeguards to protect the court record from illegal access (e.g., cyber-attacks), and there must be appropriate...

5. [2022] NZIACDT 19 – TA v Tian (Sanctions) (25 July 2022) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...having regard to Ms Tian’s record, her attitude to clients and to the disciplinary process, cancellation of her licence is an appropriate step. It is not opposed by Ms Tian who was notified this sanction would be considered.14 The public must be protected. Further comprehensive retraining would not be an adequate protection. There is no evidence the retraining directed in the earlier sanctions decisions has remedied her lack of professionalism. Cancellation is appropriate, no...

6. FE v MB LCRO 328/2012 (23 February 2015) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...taken a different view of the evidence that was available to the Committee, but have reached the same conclusion as the Committee, namely that there is no jurisdiction to consider the conflict of interest aspect of the complaint. [34] Having carefully considered all of the information available on review, I have identified no reason to interfere with the Committee’s discretion, or its decision in respect of the allegations of negligence and failure to produce information. The p...

7. National Standards Committee 1 v Palmer [2023] NZLCDT 13 (28 April 2023) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...Purposes and principles of penalty [13] It is now well established that the purpose of penalties imposed in professional disciplinary proceedings is not punitive. Rather, it reflects the purposes of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA): the protection of the public, the upholding of professional standards and of the confidence that the public has in the legal profession. [14] As well as that, an assessment of proportionate penalty includes consideration of the following:...

8. LCRO 88/2023 VG v FB and SS (30 July 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...instructions to contact his former partner’s lawyer. This nuanced approach reflected a strategic decision to acknowledge the application without committing to a detailed response to it, while still ensuring that preliminary measures were taken to protect Mr VG’s interests. [65] When it became apparent that Mr VG would need to file a response to the application filed in the Family Court, he endeavoured to attend to that himself. [66] His attempts to do so were unsuccessful. [67] A...

9. [2025] NZLVT 007 - Burney v Christchurch City Council (13 March 2025) [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...Land Recovery) Zone is a “holding” zone that will be subject to a later plan change to confirm the zoning pattern which will be informed by the outcome of the ‘Residential Red Zone’ programme. In the interim period, there is a need to protect the flat land ‘Red Zone’ against development and activity which may compromise or impede options for the long term recovery and the future use of the zone. [emphasis added] [21] In the evidence of Ms Hansbury, senior planner for th...

10. Wentzel v Collie [2012] NZWHT Auckland 15 [pdf, 250 KB]

    ...as a result of the house leaking. WAS MS COLLIE ACTING AS A DEVELOPER? [63] Ms Brebner and Mr Wentzel claim that Ms Collie was acting as developer in respect of the house. They claim that she owed a developer’s non-delegable duty of care to future purchasers and that this duty was breached when the house was built with defects. [64] The rationale for the imposition of a duty of care on developers was discussed in Body Corporate 188273 v Leuschke Group Architects Lt...