Search Results

1. CE v XQ LCRO 182 / 2010 (27 May 2011) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...6 November 2008 setting out the costs ordered to be paid by her in those proceedings. This sum totalled $7,808. 3 [11] The Applicant also provided an account from XR, Barrister of Hamilton, in the sum of $5,685, headed „CQ v CS – appeal‟. The account is dated 5 August 2009. It can only be assumed that these costs were incurred by the Applicant in attempting to appeal the decision in which the costs order was made. [12] It is clear that the Standards Committee is co...

2. DY v WB LCRO 27 / 2010 (12 July 2011) [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...would be considerable obstacles to an argument that the jurisdiction of this office to receive an application out of time was in any way enlarged by some failure to explain on the part of staff of the Office. As Judge Barber observed in Customs Appeal Authority No.29/98 (1999) 1 NZCC 51, 128, the jurisdiction of a Tribunal cannot be extended by the conduct or omissions of its staff. [14] Other comments made by the LCRO in that decision are also relevant. In particular, the LCRO co...

3. BORA Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...the knowledge of the defendant, [6] but because the summary process was not authorised for these offences, the “prescribed by law” element of the justification test under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act may not be met. 10. However, the Court of Appeal in R v Gorrie [7] has confirmed that s 67(8) does not apply to the claim of right in the definition of wilful damage in s 11 of the Summary Offences Act 1981, and that the prosecution is obliged to establish that element. The Court’s r...

4. BORA Telecommunications Amendment Bill [pdf, 370 KB]

   ...included in these sections are adequate and do not limit the right to natural justice affirmed in section 27 of the Bill of Rights Act. 16. Clause 54 of the Bill inserts a new section 156I into the Act which limits the time that parties have to appeal a civil infringement notice to 20 working days. The 20 working day period relates only to the time to lodge an appeal. Accordingly, this provision appears to reach an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and administrati...

5. OG v PV LCRO 203 / 2011 (27 July 2012) [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...complaint about the Practitioner to the New Zealand Law Society in December 2009 which the Standards Committee declined to uphold under section 138(1)(f). The Standards Committee’s decision, dated 12 April 2010, referred to the limited right of appeal available to the parties, and stated that an allegation of error did not of itself amount to unsatisfactory conduct. [5] The Applicants sought a review of that decision, which was unsuccessful as the Legal Complaints Review Office...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 103 Handley v South Taranaki District Council [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI T AIAO 0 AOTEAROA Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 103 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND of an appeal pursuant to s 174 of the Act BETWEEN D M HANDLEY (ENV-2017 -WLG-96) Appellant AND SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL RespondenURequiring Authority Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Hearing: at Whanganui on 25 and 26 June 2018 Appearances: A Cameron for the appellant M Conw...

7. [2019] NZEmpC 19 Waste Management New Zealand Ltd v Jones [pdf, 321 KB]

   ...error or miscalculation, and applies for an extension of time promptly, the Court was not inclined to characterise the application as one seeking an indulgence. The Court said:6 Accordingly, where a litigant takes steps to exercise the right of appeal within the required timeframe (including advising the other party), but misses the specified time limit by a day or so as a result of an error or miscalculation (especially by a legal adviser) and applies for an extension of time prom...

8. LCRO 199/2018 EJ v AP and XG (6 March 2019) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...scope of review [5] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … 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...

9. [2019] NZEnvC 081 Evans Homes Ltd v Invercargill City Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC 81 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under s120 of the Act EVANS HOMES LIMITED (ENV-2018-CHC-194) Appellant INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Hearing: In Chambers at Christchurch Date of Decision: 2 May 2019 Date of Issue: 2 May 2019 DETERMINATION A: Under s279(1 )(b) of the Resource...

10. LCRO 66/2021 OW v HP (11 June 2021) [pdf, 116 KB]

    ...scope of review [10] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … 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...