Search Results

1. LCRO 180/2022 HB v UC and JW (26 November 2024) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...December 2022) at [7]. 29 At [10]. Clause 20 of the Agreement does, in fact, refer to a Master Builders warranty. 30 At [12]. 31 Deliu v Connell [2016] NZHC 361, [2016] NZAR 475 at [2]. 9 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 in...

2. LCRO 148/2022 NH v MV (13 June 2024) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...discretion pursuant to s 138(1)(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 that further action was unnecessary or inappropriate, and on the basis (pursuant to s 138(1)(f) of the Act) that there was in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal that it would be reasonable for Ms NH to exercise. 21 At [45]. 22 At [46]. 23 At [48]. 10 Ms NH’ application for review [48] Ms NH provided a succinct summary of the reasons for her application for review. S...

3. [2024] NZREADT 38 – TX v REAA (22 October 2024) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...consideration; or (4) was plainly wrong. [44] It was submitted by the Registrar that, subject to these limitations, the Registrar’s decision must be confirmed, even if the Tribunal might come to a different decision on the merits if it was a general appeal. [45] We accept counsel’s submissions as to the nature of this review. We will, in deciding whether these limited grounds of review have been made out, need to make some assessment of the merits, without reaching any conclu...

4. Paea v McLeod - Succession to Donald Te Whetu McLeod [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1982 (2024 CJ 1982) [pdf, 564 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.14 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [43] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:15 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court or the...

5. LCRO 60/2023 VE v NB (30 April 2025) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...paragraphs taken from decisions issued by this Office. For completeness, I repeat that paragraph here. [40] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:15 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 inv...

6. [2017] NZEnvC 109 Norsho Bulc Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.5 MB]

   ...rural character and amenity. (f) Neither of the s 1 04( d) RMA gateway tests were met. (g) The site did not differ from the generality of sites in the rural zone to an extent that warranted special consideration for consent. [2] The decision was appealed by Norsho Bulc, seeking consents for the proposal subject to appropriate conditions. The Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society Incorporated (the Society) registered an interest in the appeal in support of the Council's...

7. [2023] NZEnvC 141 Nature Preservation Trustee Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 30 MB]

   NATURE PRESERVATION TRUSTEE LIMITED v QLDC – CONSENT ORDER IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 141 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN NATURE PRESERVATION TRUSTEE LIMITED (ENV-2022-CHC-42) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge J J M Hassan – sitting alone under s279 of the Act In Chambers at Chr...

8. Tupe Snr v Everton - Manunui No 1 4th Residue Ahu Whenua Trust (2015) 334 Aotea MB 227 (334 AOT 227) [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...out in s 73 must be satisfied, with the onus on the affected trustees to provide the necessary evidence and submissions. Further, while the Court can grant such relief, that remedy will not be given lightly. 25 [43] In Wong v Burt the Court of Appeal held that s 73 was not available when trustees had proceeded, with the knowledge that their actions had already been questioned as potentially being unlawful. 26 In such a situation, the Court stated, the proper course was to have...

9. Clearwater Cove Apartments Body Corporate 170989 v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 39 [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...RESIDENTIAL UNIT OWNERS IN A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT? [23] Ms Thodey submitted that the Council did not owe a duty of care to residential owners in a mixed commercial/residential development. However, since this claim was heard the Court of Appeal considered this issue in North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 207624 (Spencer on Byron).6 [24] In Spencer on Byron the application for building consent referred to the ―Byron Avenue hotel‖ and described it as a hotel/a...

10. Darryl Sycamore [pdf, 457 KB]

    ...array of native fauna including threatened bird species. Those birds are free to migrate to, and beyond the Ecosanctuary perimeter. 2522007 page 5 The revised proposal 25 Following the decision by the Commissioner, the application was appealed and revised. Mediation was conducted, although no resolution was reached. The revised proposal is set out in the evidence of Mr Scott Willis. The key difference is the three-turbine proposal has been amended to that of a single tur...