Search Results

1. Muneez v Deng [2013] NZIACDT 33 (27 May 2013) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...April 2011. [33] Ms Deng accepts that was because she failed to clear her mail promptly. However, her counsel submits that the situation fell short of negligence. He points to the consequences of Ms Deng’s failure, and in particular the 42 day appeal period. Accordingly, Mr Muneez still had adequate time to protect his interests. Presenting the best case [34] Ms Deng accepts she failed to respond to Immigration New Zealand’s letters. [35] However, she says Mr Muneez was infor...

2. LD v Review of prosecutorial decision LCRO 15/2015 (15 June 2015) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...Standards Committee Determination – Reasons [14] The issue of a determination referring the complaint or matter to the Tribunal which contains no discussion or reasons accords with the provisions of s 158 of the Act, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Orlov v NZLS.9 [15] The dilemma the absence of discussion or reasons presents on review has been referred to in other decisions from this Office,10 which is required by s 213(2) of the Act to provide reasons for its decision...

3. [2017] EmpC 156 Coomer v JA McCallum & Son Ltd [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...that he would ordinarily be entitled to receive. This success, it was said, stems from the finding that he had suffered a personal grievance. He achieved not only the benefit of that decision but compensation. Reliance was placed on the Court of Appeal decision in Weaver v Auckland Council.12 11 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 183(1). 12 Weaver v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 330. [28] Weaver was complex litigation about...

4. Amaru v Dickson - Puketapu 3C7B1 (2019) 399 Aotea MB 202 (399 AOT 202) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...trustee has failed to carry out the duties of a trustee satisfactorily; or (b) because of lack of competence or prolonged absence, the trustee is or will be incapable of carrying out those duties satisfactorily. [20] In Rameka v Hall, the Court of Appeal identified a two-stage approach for determining whether trustees should be removed under s 240.5 Firstly, have the trustees failed to carry out their duties satisfactorily? Secondly, if so, should the Court exercise its discretio...

5. National Standards Committee 1 v Name Suppressed [2021] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...principles of natural justice. Others are based on important policy concerns that are equally applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal. In both instances there is an 4 W v Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal [2019] 3 NZLR 779 (HC) upheld on appeal in A Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing Council of New Zealand v Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal [2020] NZCA 435. 5 W v Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal [2019] 3 NZLR 779 (HC) at paras [104]–[1...

6. LCRO 34/2020 KL v OP (4 August 2020) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...of the trust and not as a lawyer”. In the circumstances the Committee considered Mr KL’s complaint “is a matter for High Court, not a Standards Committee”. 4 [15] In explaining its reasoning, the Committee referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Hansen v Young [2004] 1 NZLR 37 and a decision by this Office, PY v SD LCRO 217/2017 (26 March 2018) which discusses the separate roles of lawyers and executors/trustees and the distinctions between those roles. [16] The...

7. LCRO 196/2019 FL v ND (8 June 2020) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...process of review under the Act:3 3 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 5 … 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 f...

8. [2019] NZEmpC 44 Clarke v GEA Processing Engineering Ltd [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...The application of the rule has been the subject of numerous decisions of Courts exercising civil jurisdiction, including the Employment Court. Two examples involving employment cases were Powell v Hally Labels Ltd,4 a decision of the Court of Appeal, and Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Unite Inc5. [26] In Powell, the Court of Appeal made several pertinent comments on the application of the rule in the following paragraphs:6 [19] Costs are in the court’s discretion, but r 15.23 of the H...

9. LCRO 209/2018 LY v RT (26 June 2019) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...Scope of Review [28] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … 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...

10. [2019] NZEnvC 127 Taylor v Selwyn District Council [pdf, 3.4 MB]

    BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA Court: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under s 120 of the Act JOHN AND SANDRA TAYLOR (ENV-2018-CHC-212) Appellants SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL Hearing: Respondent Environment Judge J J M Hassan In Chambers at Christchurch Date of Determination: 26 July 2019 Date of Issue: 26 July 2019 DETERMINATION A: Under s279(1 )(b)...