Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 110 Evans v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 463 KB]

   ...evidence presented to the court. [100] However, we are satisfied to proceed on the basis that the Council could grant an exemption under the Act if in the future a liability ever arose under these rules. Should there be further consultation? [101] Leave was also granted on the question of whether there had been adequate consultation in relation to the proposed amendments, while noting in our decision that: (a) the modified form of relief we were considering was within the scope...

2. LCRO 15/2023 and LCRO 21/2023 OE v CN (13 February 2025) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...[100] Mr OE provided a detailed timeline with his complaint. Mr CN himself could have identified the time gaps between events and given some detailed explanation for these to the Committee rather than his generalised responses. He did not. [101] [Law Firm C] did not take the opportunity to do so either. 20 [102] In the absence of any explanations for gaps of one month or more without communication from Mr CN, there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of unsatisfactory...

3. Vaka v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2024] NZACC 197 (2 December 2024) [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...Woods. [100] On this basis there is no validity to this criticism of Mr Woods’ approach and no basis to establish a higher premorbid starting point on Dr Newburn’s evidence alone. Psychometric testing should not be considered in isolation. [101] Dr Newburn argues the sufficiency of the medical, physical, social, and emotional history taken is important to consider the real-life position and not see the testing in isolation. Dr Newburn says, “what varies across the reports i...

4. [2024] NZREADT 32 – JX v CAC2201 & Baker (13 September 2024) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...reply, “That’s right”, coupled with the use of “master” in the description of Mr T, implies not only that he was a master builder but that such a builder’s guarantee covered the work even after the purchaser bought the property. [101] We conclude that any reasonable person would have understood the licensee’s email to be saying Mr T was a master builder and the work came with a master builder’s guarantee of 10 years, which could be transferred to the purchaser. Th...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 98 The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children v Hill [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...agree with that finding. However, I consider that the defect was 61 At [170]–[172]. 62 At [173]. minor and did not result in Ms Hill being treated unfairly. Therefore, I find that Ms Hill was not disadvantaged by that step.63 [101] Counsel for both parties also filed submissions on whether the dismissal was justified more broadly. However, those submissions go beyond the pleadings before the Court, and I therefore do not consider them. Outcome [102] In li...

6. LCRO 130/2021 TF v SM (8 May 2025) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...where a non-client has sufficient personal interest in such an issue to establish good grounds for making a complaint. I do not consider this matter to be one of them. (b) Did the respondent misuse information confidential to the applicant? [101] Rule 8.8 of the Rules provides that: A lawyer must not breach or risk breaching a duty of confidence owed by the lawyer that has arisen outside a lawyer–client relationship, whether to benefit the lawyer, a client, or otherwise. In su...

7. LCRO 34/2023 PI v SY (27 June 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...the appropriate step that should have been taken at commencement, was to file judicial review proceedings. It was recommended to Mr SY that steps be taken to abandon the appeal, with efforts being made to avoid potential costs to Mr PI. 16 [101] The other counsel instructed, considered that one of the conditions that Mr PI sought to have challenged was capable of being addressed through the vehicle of a District Court appeal, but with caution that the grounds for challenge were limit...

8. Derham v Accident Compensation Corporation (Gradual Process Injury; Suspension of Entitlements) [2025] NZACC 026 (17 February 2025) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...being asymptomatic. The evidence in this case does not establish these elements. I do not consider either Dr Collinson or Dr Walls to have established a traumatic injury or to have unequivocally attributed the symptoms to the February accident. [101] This is particularly so, given CAP determined there was no radiological evidence of any traumatic pathology and “no superimposed traumatic pathology on the background of degenerative changes.” [102] Based on the medical opinions...

9. [2025] NZEmpC 48 Brown v The Clinician Holdings Ltd [pdf, 287 KB]

   CRAIG BROWN v THE CLINICIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED [2025] NZEmpC 48 [17 March 2025] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2025] NZEmpC 48 EMPC 355/2023 IN THE MATTER OF an application for a declaration under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 BETWEEN CRAIG BROWN Plaintiff AND THE CLINICIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 21–25 October 2024 Appearance

10. LCRO 55/2024 EFH and KFH v SP and NR (15 October 2024) [pdf, 239 KB]

    ...proceedings is a matter for the court pursuant to s 148 of the Land Transfer Act 2017. In relation to that possibility, I repeat the observation made in the first review decision that the findings I have made are not binding on a court. Decision [101] Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Act, the decision of the Committee is reversed. [102] I determine that no further action be taken on the complaint as against NR under s 138(2) of the Act, as further action against her is inappropriate...