Search Results

1. LCRO 126/2013 MZ v JK [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...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. [29] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:6 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determinat...

2. LCRO 207/2016 YN v NZ Police (2 August 2017) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...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. [37] 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 determinati...

3. LCRO 57/2017 SD v WP [pdf, 182 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. 4 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 8 [28] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the foll...

4. Fenton - Rūrima Māori Reservation (2004) 102 Whakatāne 196 (102 WHK 196) [pdf, 851 KB]

   ...surprising that issues surrounding their establishment, maintenance and enhancement have come before this and the Maori Appellate Court regularly. In the decision in Re Ngati Tanewai - Ward-Williams (2003) 123 Aotea MB 159, a number of important judgments concerning Maori reservations were reviewed, which are repeated here: (a) the Court must have regard to Maori customary concepts relating to turangawaewae and ancestry in determining beneficiaries of a Maori Reservation. Only in very s...

5. [2021] NZEnvC 015 BWO Offshore Singapore PTE LTD v The Environmental Protection Authority [pdf, 3.8 MB]

   ...Ruling. [26] I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this proceeding the presumption against costs does not arise. I consider an award of costs against the EPA is possible. Factors that warrant an award of costs [27] I will not lengthen this judgement by setting out the written submissions of the parties. I will endeavour to address the key propositions advanced by the parties in the course of providing my reasons for my decision. [28] I accept the EPA's submission that i...

6. LCRO 77/2020 MP v RJ (30 July 2020) [pdf, 194 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. [24] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:3 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee deter...

7. LCRO 185/2018 GT v NE (16 July 2019) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...law profession should not condone it, or find it to be acceptable. Acceptance by the profession that such negligence is acceptable would tend to lower the standard and reputation of the profession in the eyes of the general public. [45] In that judgment the Court was referring to the standard applicable to this complaint, because it relates to conduct prior to 1 August 2008. Failure to place caveat on stock [46] It is somewhat misleading to refer to a process whereby a “caveat”...

8. Southland Standards Committee v P [2022] NZLCDT 12 (28 April 2022) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...(individually and collectively) are worthy of disciplinary sanction? [13] In the latter situation, but in a more general sense, the Court of Appeal has held that not every breach of a rule requires a finding of unsatisfactory conduct. Delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Keene v Legal Complaints Review Officer8 Goddard J observed, as part of a discussion of the “framework of complaints”, that where there had been a breach of the rules it was open to a Standards Com...

9. Final-Technical-Assessment-F-Hydrology-and-Flooding-updated-23-Dec-2022_Part2.pdf [pdf, 20 MB]

   ...116. These factors provide context to the dynamic environment in which the potential effects of the Ō2NL Project are evaluated. 117. Therefore, it is difficult to assign a single set of effects thresholds uniformly to all areas and some expert judgement is required. The criteria in Table F.4 have been used as a guide for the assessment of effects in the context of the Ō2NL Project. Table F.4: Less than minor effects screening criteria (project specific context) Location of im...

10. LCRO 83/2024 AGM v CPF (24 March 2025) [pdf, 172 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. [43] 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 determ...