Search Results

1. LCRO 68/2022 YE v AL (23 May 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...thereby prompting Mr YE to question where the water was supplied from. 6 Nature and scope of review [35] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:10 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 invol...

2. [2023] NZREADT 20 - CAC 2107 v Sheldon (Penalty) (14 August 2023) [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...ORDERS [46] Mr Sheldon is: 1. Censured. 2. Ordered to pay a fine of $2,000 to the Authority within one month of this decision. [47] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [48] Having regard to the interests of the public in the transparency of the Tribunal and knowing of wrongdoing by licensees, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision.15 _____...

3. 2023-05-22-Form-33-Prouse-Trust-K-S-Prouse.pdf [pdf, 429 KB]

   ...and • a person who made a submission about the subject matter of the proceedings. We are not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308C of the Resource Management Act 1991. We are directly affected by an effect of the subject of the appeal that- • (a) adversely affects the environment; and • (b) does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. We are interested in those parts of the Notice of Requirement proceeding that introduce environmenta...

4. [2023] NZREADT 13 - CAC v Sun (9 June 2023) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...date of this decision. (c) Ordered to pay costs of $27,271.50 to the Authority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [50] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [51] In light of the outcome of this charge and having regard to the interests of the parties and of the public, it is proper to order publication of the decision of the Tribunal without identify...

5. LCRO 39/2022 RD v QL and ZH (29 November 2023) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...negotiating the terms of the new lease, which have no relevance to this decision. Nature and scope of review [40] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:10 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. I...

6. [2024] NZEnvC 056 Hastings District Council [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...convened by an independent hearings panel made up of at least one commissioner and one commissioner with a knowledge of tikanga Māori. The panel’s report is then referred to the Minister for the Environment for decision. There is no provision for appeals. HDC anticipates that PC6 could be operative by August 2024. 10 Section 32 Report, at page 9. 11 Council’s memorandum at [23]-[26]. 12 [38] Relief that may be sought by submissions is likely to fall into one of...

7. Brown v Progressive Enterprises Ltd (Strike-Out) [2024] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...case was made, the power was conferred on the Tribunal under s 115.6 3 Mr Brown did not file any opposition to the strike out when initially directed to do so in 2017. The Tribunal then did not progress any of Mr Brown’s matters as he had appealed to the senior courts from the decision of the Tribunal declining his application for the Chairperson (Mr RPG Haines QC) to recuse himself from hearing any of his proceedings. In 2020 Mr Brown was provided a further opportunity to file an...

8. National Standards Committee 2 v Tingey [2023] NZLCDT 43 (10 October 2023) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...ought to impact on penalty. 9. The importance of maintaining public confidence in the provision of legal services, which incorporates scrutiny of the disciplinary process. The purposes of disciplinary penalties was discussed by the Court of Appeal in Morahan4: [40] In deciding whether s 351 of the 2006 Act prohibited the Tribunal from considering in its penalty decision Mr Morahan’s conduct prior to 1 August 2002, we consider it helpful to first examine the purpose that underp...

9. [2024] NZIACDT 03 – MT v Murthy (11 January 2024) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...in Australia or his removal from Australia. He was subsequently issued with a work visa, having again failed to declare his criminal history. When Immigration New Zealand (Immigration NZ) found out, he was issued with a deportation order. An appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal failed.1 He left New Zealand in 2015. [6] On 1 June 2021, the complainant and the client, together with Ms Murthy, signed the immigration company’s service contract. Ms Murthy agreed to se...

10. LCRO 27/2024 VF v SR and BR (23 May 2025) [pdf, 180 KB]

    ...papers. Nature and scope of review [46] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:16 16 Deliu v Connell [2016] NZHC 361, [2016] NZAR 475 at [2]. 8 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 invo...