Search Results

1. 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”...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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...

5. LCRO 216/2018 AA v BB (28 November 2019) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...AA, all of which arose out of the same unfortunate circumstances. [3] I propose to but briefly address the background to this application, that background having been summarised in the earlier decisions issued. [4] [JDY] Limited had obtained a judgment against Mr AA in the District Court. [5] Mr CC had represented Mr AA in the District Court proceedings. 2 [6] On 17 July 2017, Mr CC provided Ms BB with instructions to act for Mr and Mrs AA, those instructions being to provide...

6. Rātima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust (2017) 64 Tākitimu MB 121 (64 TKT 121) [pdf, 874 KB]

   ...TRUST Respondents Hearing: On the papers Appearances: C Bennett for Henare Rātima A Bernie for Ivy Kahukiwa-Smith, Horo Edwards and John Wano D Porteous for George Sullivan Tania Huata-Kupa in person and with Mark Kupa Judgment: 29 November 2017 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE L R HARVEY Solicitors: C Bennett, Langley Twigg Law, P O Box 446, DX MP70034, Napier 4140, cara@langleytwigg.co.nz A Bernie, Bram...

7. [2011] NZEmpC 27 C v Air Nelson [pdf, 229 KB]

   C V AIR NELSON LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2011] NZEmpC 27 [29 March 2011] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEmpC 27 ARC 7/10 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN C Plaintiff AND AIR NELSON LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 12-14 July and 25 August 2010 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: John Haigh QC and Richard McCabe, counsel for plaintiff Christopher Toogood QC and Kevin Thompson, counsel for

8. [2008] NZEmpC WC 21/08 Mitchell v Blue Star Print Group (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN DAVID MITCHELL Plaintiff AND BLUE STAR PRINT GROUP (NZ) LTD Defendant Hearing: 3 and 4 November 2008 (Heard at Wellington) Appearances: David Mitchell in person C Heaton, Counsel for Defendant Judgment: 23 December 2008 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C M SHAW Introduction [1] Mr Mitchell’s claim is that he was unjustifiably constructively dismissed by his employer Printlink (now known as Blue Star Print Group (NZ) Ltd) beca...

9. [2012] NZEmpC 103 Progressive Meats Ltd v Pohio and others [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...AIRD, DAVID BLUE BROWN, SHANE STEPHENS, SONYA WALLACE AND RIKI HILTON Defendants Hearing: 11 June 2012 (Heard at Napier) Appearances: Tim Cleary, counsel for the plaintiff Simon Mitchell, counsel for the defendants' Judgment: 5 July 2012 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A D FORD Introduction [1] The plaintiff, Progressive Meats Limited (Progressive), was described by its counsel, Mr Cleary, as a “toll processor for ovine and venison meat exports”. Unlike...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 132 Waterford Holdings Ltd v Morunga [pdf, 197 KB]

    ...BETWEEN WATERFORD HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff AND NATHAN MORUNGA Defendant Hearing: 29 June 2015 (heard at Nelson) Appearances: M Penny, advocate for the plaintiff No appearance for the defendant Judgment: 3 August 2015 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Introduction [1] Mr Nathan Morunga was a herd manager employed by Waterford Holdings Limited (WHL). [2] As a result of animal cruelty issues coming to the attention of the...