Search Results

1. [2024] NZREADT 01 - CAC 2106 v Pang (8 January 2024) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...penalty orders are to be filed and served by 30 January 2024. Mr Pang’s submissions are to be filed and served by 20 February 2024. [55] 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 [56] Having regard to the privacy of the vendor and her daughter as well as the interests of the public in the transparency of the Tribunal, it is appropriate to order 15 publication of this d...

2. Gilvray v Rungarunga - Succession to Tamati Rungarunga [2023] Chief Judge's MB 551 (2023 CJ 551) [pdf, 319 KB]

   ...the order or certificate of confirmation or make such other order or issue such certificate of confirmation as, in the opinion of the Chief Judge, is necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or omission. [35] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:5 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...

3. LCRO 208/2021 PK v GH (13 June 2023) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...that she “was happy to withdraw” from any involvement with this review.21 Nature and scope of review [72] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:22 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...

4. 2023 NZPSPLA 036.pdf [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...unsuccessful he was stood down. [32] No evidence was provided to support this and the PSPLA had no contact from anyone on behalf of Security Guard B after 5 August 2021 attempting to have the decision declining his COA reversed. In addition, no appeal was filed against that decision. Security Guard B should not have been engaged until he obtained a COA and even if he was wrongfully engaged the continuation of his contract should have been conditional upon him obtaining a COA. When...

5. Hastie and Dredge TRI 2023-100-001 Procedural Order 6 [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...break the chain of causation. It is submitted that had the original work not been defective, the repairs would not have been undertaken and additional losses would not have been incurred. The claimants rely on Johnson v Watson, where the Court of Appeal held that it is enough to establish that the original work remained a substantial and material cause of the damage.20 [43] The claimants submit that all parties have been prejudiced by the loss of documentation caused by the eart...

6. 951650-Kainga-Ora-evidence-Phil-Jaggard-Stormwater-and-Flooding.pdf [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...infrastructure advice, support and expert evidence on water, wastewater and stormwater servicing for brownfield and greenfield development Projects for both public and private entities. The following experience is particularly relevant to this appeal: (a) Provided primary stormwater and flooding evidence on behalf of Kāinga Ora in relation to the Airport to Botany Rapid Transit Notices of Requirement (“NoRs”) applied for by Waka Kotahi and Auckland Transport (“AT”)....

7. LCRO 12/2025 AO v FA and CY (28 February 2025) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...2013) at [4]. 6 For an example of a provision in an enactment empowering a judge to extend a time limit, see s 281(1)(a)(ii) of the Resource Management Act 1991. In short, in proceedings under that enactment a judge may waive the time within which an appeal may be lodged. 5 Meaning of “working day” [23] Section 13 of the Legislation Act 2019 (LA) relevantly defines “working day” as follows: “[W]orking day means a day of a week other than … a day in the period commenc...

8. LCRO 78/2023 CQ v KV (20 May 2025) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...She also advises that the payments made to her by Ms HW were by way of rent. Nature and scope of review [69] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:14 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...

9. [2025] NZLCDT 2 Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Wintour (9 January 2025) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...orders prohibiting the publication of the practitioner’s name and details that might identify him beyond the fact that he is a criminal barrister based in Auckland. That extends through to the end of any period within which the practitioner could appeal this decision or the subsequent penalty decision. We note that News Media wish to be heard should any application be made for permanent non-publication of the practitioner’s name. [50] We record again earlier permanent non-pu...

10. Linstead v Tohu - Te Horo 3 No 1-31 (2024) 276 Taitokerau MB 273 (276 TTK 273) [pdf, 289 KB]

    ...in order to avoid possible injustice to the applicant and there is no injury or prejudice to the opposing party. 3 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 43(2). 4 Henare v Māori Trustee – Parengarenga 3G [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 1 (2012 APPEAL 1). 5 At [19]. 276 Taitokerau MB 280 [37] However, the Court also stated that an application for rehearing will not be allowed merely for the purposes of repairing omissions in the presentation of an earlier case or for resh...