Search Results

1. Hartlepool v Basildon LCRO 79 / 2009 (3 September 2009) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...reflects the fact that he did not consider Ms Hartlepool’s appeal a priority even though the appeal period was running (and later on was expired). [20] Mr Basildon’s counsel referred to the decision of the Family Court and the fact that the Judge considered Ms Hartlepool an unreliable witness and at times dishonest. The suggestion seems to be that Ms Hartlepool was unrealistic in her expectations and not entirely straightforward in her dealings and as such her allegations against...

2. McAneney v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 63 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...Council legal officer called by Ms Macky to give evidence stated that having looked through Council property records he found that Mr Kells had developed many residential properties in the Council’s jurisdiction since 1994. [23] Associate Judge Doogue in Body Corporate 187820 v Auckland City Council4 stated that in his analysis of cases concerning the liability of developers in negligence to purchases of leaky homes shows two essential considerations giving rise to the...

3. UF v OU LCRO 90 / 2011 (20 March 2013) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...maintain professional standards. It is an “improper purpose” to threaten to lodge a complaint to have statements which are critical of the complainant withdrawn. [35] OU also wrote subsequently to UF on 16 December 2010:19 Given the way that the Judge has dealt with this matter and the fact that the documents in question will not be considered going forward (see attached Minute), I would be willing not to proceed with a Law Society Complaint against [UG] provided that [UF’s]...

4. [2018] NZEnvC 023 Royal Forest Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...of a Notice of Motion under section 291 of the Resource Management Act 1991 ROYAL FOREST & BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED (ENV-20 17 -AKL-140) Appellant NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge JA Smith Environment Commissioner SK Prime Environment Commissioner RM Dunlop Hearing: Auckland, 16 February 2018 Appearances: PD Anderson for Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated (Forest & Bird) R...

5. BORA Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...therefore not inconsistent with s. 21 NZBORA. We note in particular the following: 41.1 The detention itself is obviously a prior condition for the new search powers, and the detention must have been authorised by a warrant from a District Court Judge (s. 13E). 41.2 It is further necessary that the person searching should have reasonable cause to suspect that the individual has hidden on / about his person any Class "A" / "B" drug. 41.3 A written report of any s...

6. JO v QP LCRO 18 / 2011 (27 August 2012) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...submitted that the file notes referred to by QP were only created after the litigation against the Council commenced but Venning J dismissed that proposition as “an extraordinary suggestion”. [14] JO’s action against QN failed. [15] After the judgement in those proceedings had been issued, JO obtained QP’s conveyancing file on which he located evidence which he contends supported his complaint against QP. The complaint, the Standards Committee determination and the Appli...

7. TB v NX LCRO 80 / 2011 (13 December 2012) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...circumstances has been considered in two recent LCRO decisions.7 At [19] of RU v MW, the LCRO referred to the leading authority of Cortez Investments Limited v Olphert & Collins8 and had this to say: All three members of the Court rejected the trial judge’s finding that “serious risk of injustice” was needed to succeed in showing “special circumstances”, but all produced different “tests”. Woodhouse P opined that “if the issue is to be related to perceived injusti...

8. Applicant C v Registrar of Real Estate Agents Authority 2017] NZREADT 10 [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...of letters in support of the applicant were also submitted. These were from family members, friends, former clients, other members of the real estate industry, and her parish priest. The applicant also provided the Registrar with a copy of the Judge’s sentencing notes. One submission, in particular, was that the applicant needed to work as a salesperson in order to be able to comply with the reparation order. The Registrar’s decision [11] In her decision declining the appli...

9. [2018] NZEnvC 126 The Wellington Company Limited v Save Erskine College Trust [pdf, 4.9 MB]

   ...WELLINGTON COMPANY LIMITED ("TWCll)) (ENV-2017 -WlG-000038) Appellant THE SAVE ERSKINE COllEGE TRUST ("SECT") Respondent HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA ("HNZPT") Section 274 RMA Party Court: Principal Environment Judge l J Newhook Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Environment Commissioner 0 J Bunting Decision: On the papers Counsel: J Gardner-Hopkins for Appellant P Milne for Respondent N Mcindoe and B Dean for HNZPT Date of Decision:...

10. BORA Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill [pdf, 425 KB]

    ...that the main goals of the remedy of damages for rights breaches were: vindication;[20] deterrence from future rights breaches;[21] and denouncement of the breach to mark society’s disapproval of the breach of rights in issue.[22] At least two judges were of the view the compensatory role of making amends to the victim of a breach was only a secondary or subsidiary function of public law damages.[23] No unjustifiable limit on right to an effective remedy 9. Applying these princi...