Search Results

1. Body Corporate 199883 & Ors (Ridgeview Apartments) v Clarke [2010] NZWHT Auckland 22 [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...[46] The developer of a residential property owes a non- delegable duty of care to an intended homeowner to ensure the construction of a structurally sound house. The starting point for analysis of the scope of a duty of care is the Court of Appeal decision Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson,2 where it was held at page [241]: “We would hold that it is a duty to see that proper care and skill are exercised in the building of the houses and that it cannot be avoided by...

2. LCRO 43/2016 XZ v QW [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...scope of review [35] 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 that...

3. LCRO 95/2013 GI v JM (28 June 2017) [pdf, 255 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:10 … 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. 6 At [38]. 7 Letter attached to Mr GI’S application for review at...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 135 Save Wanaka Lakefront Reserve v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 7.6 MB]

   BEFORETHEENWRONMENTCOURT IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC135 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act SAVE WANAKA LAKE FRONT RESERVE INCORPORATED (ENV-2016-CHC-54) Appellant QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent WANAKA WATERSPORTS FACILITY TRUST Applicant Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Environment Commissioner W R Howie Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Hearing: In Chambers a...

5. LCRO 36/2018 AA v SM (19 December 2018) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...scope of review [38] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:6 … 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...

6. LCRO 52/2017 BL v JC (30 November 2018) [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...scope of review [41] 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...

7. [2020] NZEmpC 222 Flashoff v New Zealand Technology Group Hawkes Bay Ltd [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...available in the particular circumstances. That is how the case was presented by both parties, and I proceed accordingly. 13 At [29]. [71] It appears to be common ground that when considering an interim injunction assessment on appeal, observations made by the Court of Appeal in NZ Tax Refunds apply.14 I agree. The Court relevantly stated:15 The grant of an interim injunction involves, of course, the exercise of a discretion. Such a decision is amenable to appeal,...

8. LCRO 133/2017 AD v BE (18 September 2019) [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...court. (d) Mr AD lied when he said the documents had been filed in court. (e) Mr AD was not instructed to inform the court that the parties would negotiate a settlement. (f) After [EJP] had been liquidated, Mr AD said that there was a chance to appeal that decision and that he could “win this case because we have enough evidence”. Standards Committee requests further information 2 February 2017 [24] On 2 February 2017 the Committee requested further information from Mr AD...

9. [2021] NZEmpC 199 Lawton v Steel Pencil Holdings Ltd [pdf, 415 KB]

   ...directors’ and others’ liability in circumstances where a company is unable to rectify a breach. [33] That the regime created by the 2016 Amendment was more wide-ranging than had previously existed under the then s 234 was recognised by the Court of Appeal in Brill v Labour Inspector.13 The object of Part 9A was also recognised in this Court, saying it was to provide additional measures to promote the more effective enforcement of employment standards, especially minimum entit...

10. Pratt v General Distributors Limited [2025] NZHRRT 5 [pdf, 337 KB]

    ...discussed in this decision. 3 Andrew Butler and Petra Butler The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: A Commentary (2nd ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2015) at [17.4.1]. 4 Butcher v New Zealand Transport Authority [2022] NZHRRT 21 at [57]. As the Court of Appeal said in Ngaronoa v Attorney-General [2017] NZCA 351, [2017] 3 NZLR 643 at [119]: “Indirect discrimination under s 65 of the Human Rights Act can arise when a criterion in a law or policy, which is not on its face discriminatory, corres...