Search Results

1. Livingstone v Animal Health Board — Lake Rotoaira Forest Lands (2009) 245 Aotea MB 124 (245 AOT 124) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...could not be brushed over lightly. For example see F Hammond Land Holdings Ltd v Elders Pasture Ltd (1989) 2 PRNZ 232 and Shivas v BTR Nylex Holding NZ Ltd [1997] 1 NZLR 318. [13] In Roseneath Holdings Ltd v Grieve [2004] 2 NZLR 168, the Court of Appeal summarised the essential purpose of an interim injunction, at 176: “The object of an interim injunction is to protect the plaintiff from harm occasioned by any breach of rights, that is the subject of current litigation, for wh...

2. [2016] NZEmpC 71 Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...written to the employer advising that the employee was considered to have a personal 2 Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517 (EmpC) at [35]-[37] (This issue is not one affected by subsequent appeals in that case). 3 At [32]. grievance for unjustified disadvantage. The Court held that this was insufficient. 4 The 2 August correspondence forwarded to the defendant on Mrs Marx’s behalf, and by Mrs Marx herself...

3. SW v UH LCRO 170/2014 (5 February 2016) [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgment for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. [16] In Deliu v Hong it was noted that a review is:3 … much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his...

4. YM v RP LCRO 238/2012 (31 March 2016) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgment for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. [19] In Deliu v Hong it was noted that a review is:1 … much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his...

5. DH v EJ LCRO 207/2014 (13 April 2015) [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...evidence. The statutory power of review is much 3 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, s 12(b). 4 Section 12(c). 5 Application for review (24 September 2014) at [16]. 6 At [17]. 4 broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [16] Mr DH attended a review hearing in Auckland o...

6. CE v FG LCRO 346/2013 (27 August 2015) [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...difficult and I reinforce the finding of the Standards Committee that he did not, when applying to the Court, breach any professional standards. [28] JE and CE are critical of Judge X’s judgment and advise they intend to take the matter on appeal. That is the proper forum in which they may express their views and reasons for doing so and this Office will not be used as a means of reinforcing proposed litigation.11 [29] The same comments apply in relation to the question as to wh...

7. BD v EG LCRO 107/2012 (26 Aug 2015) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a standards committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issue [22] The issue on review is whether there is good reason t...

8. NQE v Tan [2013] NZIACDT 46 (01 August 2013) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...power to regulate its own procedure (section 49(1)). However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [57] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: [T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right...

9. OY v QS LCRO 66 / 2011 (28 August 2012) [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...number of 5 times by the LCRO2 and was recently the subject of comment by the High Court. In Deliu v Hong3 Winkelmann J had this to say about the nature of a review by this office: In my view the power of review is much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his or her own view on the evidence before her. 4 [18] The question is not...

10. Searancke - Lot 2 and 4 of proposed subdivision of GS5D/318 and Lot 1 of proposed subdivision of GS5D/318 (2008) 179 Gisborne MB 61 (179 GIS 61) [pdf, 2.2 MB]

    ...extensive supervisOly powers over trusts constituted under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. TIllS position was confIrmed in The Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Maori Land Court & Anor (CA6S199, 16 June 1999, Wellington) where the Comt of Appeal found that the Maori Land Comt: " ... is expressly given in s237 in respect of any trust to which Part XII applies 'all the same powers and authorities as the High Court has (whether by statute or by any rule of law or by...