Search Results

1. AS v DV LCRO 14/2014 (5 August 2014) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...Review Officer (LCRO) on review is to reach her own view on the evidence that is before her. Where the review is of an exercise of discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise particular caution before substituting her own judgment for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. Scope of Review [13] The LCRO has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or...

2. LCRO 254/2015 CW v QA (13 August 2018) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...view on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [20] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:2 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determ...

3. MVDT Annual Report 2015-2016 [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...ten year old performance vehicle, sight unseen and uninspected, knowing it had not passed compliance certification and was thus unwarranted, and then agreeing to accept delivery of it in a poorly lit provincial town at night, displayed deplorable judgment and a lack of any commercial common sense. Nevertheless she was entitled to expect an honest and truthful description of the vehicle and the trader, by giving an estimate of the cost of compliance, was bound to do that honestly an...

4. KB and SB v EQC [2020] CEIT-2020-0021 [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...consider some of the communications between the parties in their negotiations. The without prejudice save as to costs formulation allows the details of negotiations to be admissible, purely for the calculation or adjustment of costs, when the final judgment award is less than the settlement offered. The rule is codified in the High Court Rules regarding the calculation of scale costs.8 The issue in this Tribunal is that the costs jurisdiction is very different to that in the Courts. T...

5. TE v OL [2024] NZDT 458 (28 May 2024) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...opinion. It is clear from the application as written and the oral and written evidence put before me, that there was no reliance put on any particular expertise the seller may have had in relation to vehicle. The applicant decided to rely on his own judgement and that of the independent inspection. Induced [28] To determine this claim, I must also consider the term induced. The question of whether a party has been induced to enter into a contract by a misrepresentation for the purposes...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 222  Courage & Ors v The Attorney-General & Ors   [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...Henry and S Patterson, counsel and A Kilic, advocate for plaintiffs A Boadita-Cormican and G La Hood, counsel for first defendant P Skelton KC and C Pearce, counsel for second, third and fourth defendants R Kirkness, counsel to assist the Court Judgment: 21 November 2024 JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF CHIEF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS (Employer Identity) Introduction [1] This judgment deals with an outstanding issue as to the identity of the employer in these proceeding...

7. [2019] NZEmpC 172 Cowan v Idea Services Ltd [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...JEAN LOIS COWAN Plaintiff AND IDEA SERVICES LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 16 and 17 September 2019 (Heard at Palmerston North) Appearances: S Meikle, counsel for plaintiff G Ballara, counsel for defendant Judgment: 25 November 2019 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Introduction [1] Jean Cowan was dismissed for serious misconduct. Her employer, IDEA Services Limited (IDEA) considered she had hit a service user (SU), that she had a...

8. LCRO 75/2016 XN and WN v VO (25 February 2019) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer 3 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 9 to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [52] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:4 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determi...

9. Findlay v Auckland City Council [pdf, 108 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2008-100-000034 BETWEEN LEE FINDLAY AND MICHAEL ARNE SANDELIN as Trustees for LEE FINDLAY FAMILY TRUST Claimant AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND ROY STANLEY SLATER Second Respondent Hearing: 27, 28, 29 July 2009 and 26 August 2009 Counsel Appearances: E St John, counsel for claimants. D Heaney SC and S Mitchell, counsel for first respondent. M Frogley, counsel for second respondent. Appearanc

10. [2019] NZEnvC 111 Tussock Rise Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 8.4 MB]

    ...methods suggested in the submission have an opportunity to participate". If the effect of the submission "came out of left field" there might be little or no real scope for public participation. In another part of paragraph [69] of his judgment William Young J described that as "a submission proposing something completely novel". Clearwater Reso,t Limited v Christchurch City Council (HC) Christchurch AP 34/02. Option 5 above n 50. Option 5 above n 50 at [42]...