Search Results

1. LCRO 7/2024 SO v EJ and QJ (30 July 2025) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...letter (21 February 2024) Mr SO had not made any distributions of Estate funds. Nature and scope of review [55] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:40 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 i...

2. [2025] NZEmpC 168 Jenner v Corrections Association of New Zealand Incf [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...sent by CANZ’s lawyers. It submits that these documents set out the particulars that Mr Jenner is required to answer and the just cause for his removal. [81] Mr Roberts submits that the Court should have regard to decisions of the Court of Appeal in relation to strike notices16 where elucidation was permitted without requiring that the time for any notice be restarted. I accept that the letter of 30 July 2025 can be included in the mix in relation to notice. Further, given that...

3. Regulatory Impact Statement Review of aspects of the bail system [pdf, 268 KB]

   1 Regulatory Impact Statement Bail Amendment Bill Agency disclosure statement This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was prepared by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). It provides an analysis of options to address a range of problems identified in the Government‟s Review of Aspects of the Bail System. Problems relate to: bail for defendants charged with serious class A drug, violent and sexual offences and young defendants under 20; perceptions that bail may be granted in return

4. Lowe and Ors as Trustees of the Vivienne Hicks Family Trust v Morrison [2011] NZWHT Auckland 27 [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...prepared by Mr Morrison. The Council has denied liability and submitted that the plans and specifications were adequate and up to the standard of the day. [43] When considering Council liability for issuing building consents the Court of Appeal in Sunset Terraces 3 upheld Heath J‟s finding that Councils did not need to ensure manufacturers 2 Sunset Terraces above n1 and North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 1...

5. January National Panui 2021 [pdf, 254 KB]

   ...succession orders made at 69 Waikato-Maniapoto MB 240-243 on 5 December 2013 - Application to the Chief Judge A20200011431 58/93 Phyllis Nicholas Te Whaiti Nui A Toi Block - and an injunction order made at 234 Waiariki MB 188 on 17 June 2020 - Notice of Appeal A20200011782 45/93 Rure Helen James, Shona Marion Davies CJ 2020/50 - Kohinga (Hika) Haira or Kohinga Haira - and a succession order made at 48 Whangarei MB 204-205 on 27 February 1973 - Application to the Chief Judge A202000...

6. Regulatory Impact Assessment relating to a cannabis regulatory model [pdf, 7.6 MB]

   ...existed prior to legalisation.6 • These risks could be mitigated through enhanced public education to ensure people are well informed of the risks from cannabis use. Advertising of products could be prohibited and products that are particularly appealing for new users could be restricted. Normalisation of cannabis use • The risk that the proposed regulatory model would normalise cannabis use is low given cannabis use would be prohibited in public. As such, cannabis use would n...

7. Dixon - Succession to Hare Manukau [2021] Chief Judges MB 887 (2021 CJ 887) [pdf, 942 KB]

   ...the orders made. Reference to areas of difficulty 29. Sections 48(1) and (2) of the 1993 Act states: 48 Matters already finalised or pending (1) No order made by the Chief Judge under section 44, or made by the Appellate Court on appeal from any such order, shall take away or affect any right or interest acquired for value and in good faith under any instrument of alienation registered before the making of any such order. (2) No payment made in good faith pursua...

8. Schimanski - Succession to Tamati Hapimana [2022] Chief Judges MB 489 (2022 CJ 489).pdf [pdf, 798 KB]

   ...for the surname “Chapman” is “Hapimana”. 28. Finally, sections 48(1) and (2) of the 1993 Act states: 48 Matters already finalised or pending (1) No order made by the Chief Judge under section 44, or made by the Appellate Court on appeal from any such order, shall take away or affect any right or interest acquired for value and in good faith under any instrument of alienation registered before the making of any such order. (2) No payment made in good faith pursu...

9. Appendix-10_Michael-Thompson_s87F-Report_Water-Take-and-Allocation_28-April-2023.pdf [pdf, 893 KB]

   ...in stream flow are unlikely to adversely affect the specific values and attributes listed above in a more than minor way. However, it seems plausible at least that flow- 14 Schedule F (https://pnrp.gw.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Chapter-12-Schedules-Appeal- version-2023.pdf). 15 Migratory species are indicated in italics and the conservation status of “At Risk” and “Nationally Vulnerable” species are underlined and in bold, respectively. https://pnrp.gw.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Chap...

10. LCRO 47/2024 OZ v HD (22 November 2024) [pdf, 277 KB]

    ...scope of review [45] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:5 … 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...