Search Results

1. Ref: LCRO 99/2019 SQ v LP (27 October 2020) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...scope of review [49] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:7 … 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...

2. [2020] NZEmpC 141 H and C v RPW [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...respondent or to others with a legitimate interest in the outcome. The Supreme Court went on to say that: “[w]here there is significant delay coupled with significant prejudice, then it may well be appropriate to refuse leave even though the appeal appears to be strongly arguable.”10 8 An Employee v An Employer [2007] ERNZ 295 (EmpC) at [9]. 9 Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801. 10 At [38](d). [23]...

3. [2019] NZEmpC 83 Pitman v Advanced Personnel Services Ltd [pdf, 374 KB]

   ...costs. [51] However, the inquiry does not start and stop with the assessment of actual costs.36 In George the Court considered whether a contractual indemnity involved any discretion under cl 19(1) of sch 3 to the Act.37 Applying the Court of Appeal’s decision in Watson & Son Ltd v Active Manuka Honey Association, the Court held that no discretion remains where a contractual indemnity is enforced, but there are public policy considerations and an assessment is needed as to w...

4. LCRO 185/2020 BC v DE and FG decision & minute (20 May 2021 & 30 April 2021) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...the issue as being whether it was the “appropriate forum to consider Ms BC’s complaint.”1 It further noted that a Committee “can decide to take no further action on a complaint where it considers there is an adequate remedy or right of appeal that would be reasonable for the complainant to exercise.”2 [28] The Committee then observed that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner “was established to provide information on privacy matters and to resolve privacy disputes, for...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 174 Ashby v NIWA Vessel Management Ltd [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...Authority’s determination on that issue. NIWA Vessel submits that if Ms Ashby had wished the Authority to award more than $20,000, she should have filed an amended statement of problem in the Authority. [42] NIWA Vessel relies on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in McCulloch and Partners v Smith.8 The appeal was from a judgment of the Employment Court in which the Employment Court had awarded a plaintiff $27,500 even though they had only sought $15,000 in their statement of...

6. LCRO 42/2022 QA v Kennelly (19 April 2023) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...corrected on review, and the findings of unsatisfactory conduct should be dismissed. Nature and scope of review [69] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:20 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...

7. [2023] NZEnvC 162 Allison v Clutha District Council [pdf, 2.7 MB]

   Allison & Toko Golf Club Inc v Clutha District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 162 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN ALLISON & TOKO GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED (ENV-2023-CHC-6) Appellants AND PIONEER ENERGY LIMITED Applicant AND CLUTHA DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge P A Steven – sitting alone under s279...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 193 Le Gros v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 284 KB]

   ...the Court does is specialised – it involves the resolution of issues between parties to employment relationships within the industrial relations framework. All of this receives statutory recognition, including via ss 214(1) and 216, limiting appeals against a decision on the construction of either an individual employment agreement or a collective employment agreement, and (when deciding an appeal) requiring regard to be had to the special jurisdiction of the Court, the objects o...

9. [2024] NZEnvC 111 Scaife v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 255 KB]

   SCAIFE V QLDC – TOPIC 38 – FINAL DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 111 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act BETWEEN JAN-MARC SERVAAS SCAIFE (ENV-2021-CHC-022) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Environment Commissioner J T Baines Hearing: On...

10. LCRO 160/2024 XT v YQ (27 June 2025) [pdf, 219 KB]

    ...contained a cross-reference to clause 7.2. In context, the cross-reference appeared to be an error. The Family Court Judge found that the reference to clause 7.2 “…was a clerical error and it should read 9.2”.5 [29] The applicant unsuccessfully appealed the Family Court’s main decision. He apparently also applied unsuccessfully to the High Court to recall the probate granted of Mr X’s will. [30] In total, the respondent’s firm charged the estate about $84,000 in legal...