Search Results

1. Z v Secretary for Justice [2023] NZRA 001 (28 March 2023) [pdf, 306 KB]

   ...for Justice, above note 7. 17 [75] In J v Secretary for Justice,19 the Authority noted that there are no prescribed requirements for assessing the skill and competence of an applicant. The assessment therefore involves an exercise of judgement by the decision-maker.20 The Authority noted some considerations that may inform the exercise of that judgement – the length of time the applicant has been involved in the relevant category, the existence or otherwise of complai...

2. Randle v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for cover) [2024] NZACC 131 [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...Guidelines. [4] Mr Randle emphasised the points in his Notice of Appeal and written submissions that the reported accounts of the circumstances of the accident on 23 December 2021 and his injury were mis-recorded and loaded with a series of value judgments. Mr Randle explained the claim form was prepared by his GP without his knowledge. This form, together with the initial cover assessment completed by a cover assessor were then relied on in the analysis of medical practitioners i...

3. Waitangi Tribunal - issue 69 of Te Manutukutuku [pdf, 2.5 MB]

   TE RŌPŪ WHAKAMANA I TE TIRITI O WAITANGI Kohi-Tātea 2016 | January 2016 ISSUE 69 Kia puta ki te whai ao ki te ao mārama From the world of darkness moving into the world of light Te Manutukutuku 40 The Waitangi Tribunal Level 7, Fujitsu Tower 141 The Terrace Wellington New Zealand DX SX11237 Tel : 64 4 914 3000 Fax : 64 4 914 3001 www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Manutukutuku is produced and published by the Waitangi Tribunal Unit of the Ministry of Justice, and every effort has

4. Recommendations recap - issue 5 [pdf, 1 MB]

   Recommendations recap A summary of coronial recommendations and comments made between 1 October–31 March 2013 Issue 5 Published by the Ministry of Justice ISSN 2253-5152 Disclaimer This publication has been produced by the research counsel of the Office of the Chief Coroner. The best effort has been made to accurately summarise the circumstances, findings and recommendations made by the coroner in each case – despite this, these are not exact replications of coronial findings. T

5. [2007] NZEmpC CC 5/07 Reynolds v Burgess [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN FRANCESCA REYNOLDS Plaintiff AND DEBORAH JANE BURGESS Defendant Hearing: 19 and 20 June 2006 (Heard at Christchurch) Appearances: Francesca Reynolds, In person Grant Slevin, Counsel for Defendant Judgment: 2 March 2007 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A COUCH [1] Ms Reynolds operates a business known as Eftpos Easy and Cash Register Hire. Over the last several years, two companies have traded under that name: Shelton Holdings L...

6. Waitangi Tribunal theme D - Crown's right of preemption [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   " , I i I " ,: I i, I ; I , i i , I , , i ' \ ~ " I I, i : I , I : i I ' i ! I ; I RANGAHAUA WHANUI NATIONAL THEME D THE CROWN'S RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION AND FITZROY'S WAIVER PURCHASES ROSE DAAMEN 'AUGUST 1998 FIRST RELEASE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL RANGAHAUA WHANUI SERIES Other Rangahaua Whanui reports District reports District 1: Auckland (pt I), R Daamen, P Hamer, and Dr B Rigby; (pt 11), M Belgrave Distri

7. M D Cottle Family Trust & Anor v CAC 20002 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 91 [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...complainants to particularise complaints so as to point to specific provisions of the Act and/or Rules allegedly breached. [11] In Wyatt v REAA and Barfoot & Thompson Ltd, [2012] NZHC 2550, the High Court held (per Woodhouse J): “[50] In my judgment the Tribunal was correct when it observed, in effect, that the enquiry on a complaint is not limited to individual paragraphs in s 72. In this case the enquiry can include the question raised by paragraph (a) as to whether the work...

8. BW v NA LCRO 266/2012 and 269/2012 (9 June 2014) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...LCRO [31] The role of the LCRO on review is to reach his/her own view of the evidence before him/her. Where the review is of an exercise of discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his/her own judgment for that of the Standards Committee without good reason. Scope of Review [32] The LCRO has broad powers to conduct his/her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committ...

9. CK v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 63 / 2011 (11 October 2013) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...affidavit, nor explain why none was sought. [50] It is undoubtedly open to the Court to challenge any submission by a lawyer. However, a careful reading of the Court’s comments (particularly that contained in the closing paragraph of the appeal judgment) makes clear that the criticism was aimed at the Practitioner’s standard of advocacy, recording the Court’s dissatisfaction with the manner in which the appeal was prepared and advanced, being without merit and plainly unsusta...

10. JE v FQ LCRO 213/2012 (17 June 2015) [pdf, 85 KB]

    ...the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) on review is to reach his own view of the evidence before him. Where the review is of an exercise of discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgement for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. The Hearing [12] Both parties attended a hearing on the 12th Analysis of May 2015. [13] The nub of Mr and Mrs JE’s complaint is argument that Mr FQ failed to take...