Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Wintour [2025] NZLCDT 2 (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...

5. Wellington Standards Committee v CLS [2014] NZLCDT 80 [pdf, 412 KB]

   ...considered to be of and incidental to legal work and therefore legal work which is covered by the term “regulated services”. [52] Counsel for the practitioner opposed the submissions of the Committee. He referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hansen v Young.1 In that decision the Court referred to the different capacities that a solicitor has in the dual role of solicitor/trustee. It held that the responsibility for the administration of an estate was with the exe...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher, Short and MacDonald [2015] NZLCDT 47 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...no means comparable with the present case, we also note the rejection of the suggestion that because Mr Daniels was to cease practice there was an acceptable reason to avoid suspension. Mr Daniels’ suspension for three years was upheld in the appeal. [59] Mr Katz submits that it is not necessary, certainly for public protection, given that Mr Short has also retired, but even as a demonstration of proportionate response to the public, for a suspension to be imposed in this case....

7. [2012] NZEmpC 172 Gregory v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 301 KB]

   JIMMY GREGORY V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NZEmpC AK [2012] NZEmpC 172 [5 October 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 172 ARC 98/09 IN THE MATTER OF de novo challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN JIMMY GREGORY Plaintiff AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant Hearing: 15-19 and 22-25 November 2010; 8 April 2011; 5-7, 9 and 12-13 December 2011 (

8. Wall v Karaitiana - Tauhara Middle 15 Trust (2008) 87 Taupo MB 107 (87 TPO 107) [pdf, 14 MB]

   87 Taupo MB 107 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT Hearing: Counsel: Date: Solicitors: A20070002293 UNDER Section 237, 238 and 240, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Tauhara Middle 15 T111st BETWEEN CHARLES TE EREAOWHAKAKOT AHI W ALL, JOHN T AHAU, PETER CLARKE, FRED NICOLL, ADRIAN PAERATA Applicants AND HARVEY KARAlTIANA Respondent 315 Rotorua MB 13 on 1 August 2007 85 Taupo MB 174, on 25 June 2007 85 Taupo MB 17, on 23 February

9. LCRO 14/2023 BW and Company A Limited v PK and OJ (31 August 2023) [pdf, 430 KB]

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2023] NZLCRO 091 Ref: LCRO 14/2023 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN BW and COMPANY A LIMITED Applicant AND PK and OJ Respondents DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Intro

10. 2023-10-17-WK-Opening-legal-submissions.pdf [pdf, 604 KB]

    Barristers and Solicitors Wellington Solicitor Acting: David Allen / Thaddeus Ryan Email: david.allen@buddlefindlay.com / thaddeus.ryan@buddlefindlay.com Tel 64 4 462 0423 Fax 64 4 499 4141 PO Box 2694 DX SP20201 Wellington 6011 ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ENV-2023-WLG-000005 Under the RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 In the matter of the direct referral of application for resource