Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (2 April 2014) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...Role of the LCRO [25] The role of the LCRO on review is to reach her own view of the evidence before her. Where the review is of an exercise of discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting her own judgement for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. Review Hearing [26] Both parties attended and participated in a review hearing in Auckland on 18 February 2014, and exchanged further information after the hearing. Bac...

5. LCRO 130/2016 RB v ZB (28 June 2017) [pdf, 229 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. [26] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:11 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determina...

6. Brokenshaw - Te Kaha B6X2 (2003) 81 Ōpōtiki MB 18 (81 OPO 18) [pdf, 891 KB]

   ...raised. Again the Court needed to give Mr Peterson time to respond. However, the Court imposed a timetable for submissions and any further evidence to be filed. That timetable was not adhered to and has contributed to the delay in completing this judgment. EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES At that hearing, Mr Peterson representing Caroline, advised the Court that the applications made for an injunction and determination of ownership of the house had been filed because the Ottoways had no right...

7. Hakaraia - Part Raetihi 2B2C3C2A1 (2007) 183 Aotea MB 2 (183 AOT 2) [pdf, 3 MB]

   ...change of a part of the block, subject to the creation of an ahu whenua trust in favour of the applicants over the General land for the duration of any mortgage. This approach is consistent with that of the Maori Appellate Court in the Wainui 2F40 judgment referred to previously. [13] I understand time is of the essence and so confirm that I will entertain an application for partition or receipt of further submissions from counsel at short notice to be dealt with in chambers if nece...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Ravelich [2020] NZLCDT 3 [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...obvious to the Police that Mr Y was still involved in running the company after he had been declared bankrupt. All of the circumstances surrounding this dispute were complicated by the fact that Mr Y had appealed his bankruptcy adjudication and the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the appeal was not delivered until February 2016. [25] Mr Ravelich’s brief of evidence stated “The business was run collectively between (Mr Y), VT, and myself. Whilst I was duty manager director a...

9. LCRO 75/2022 BG v HC (25 October 2022) [pdf, 212 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. 3 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 7 [28] 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 ju...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 286 Newsome v Auckland Council [pdf, 249 KB]

    ...abatement notices were cancelled and the appeal withdrawn, Ms Bielby noted that the Court will not have considered the merits of the arguments for and against the decision to issue them. She noted that the Court has previously declined to make a judgement about the strength of possible arguments via a costs determination when the matter was settled and the arguments were not heard, referring to the decision in HPC Plumbing & Gas Ltd v Auckland Council:6 [25] The Court was not r...