Search Results

1. Kartikeya v Fernyhough [2014] NZIACDT 44 (03 April 2014) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...offer the protection a person had when dealing with a licensed immigration adviser. [82] The seriousness of the finding is substantially reduced, as there is no finding of dishonesty, however it is inescapable what did occur was a serious error of judgement on the part of the adviser. [83] It follows the adviser engaged in misleading behaviour (which is a ground for complaint under section 44(2)(d) of the Act). Decision [84] The Tribunal upholds the complaint pursuant to section 50...

2. LCRO 286/2013 NL v UC (5 September 2017) [pdf, 256 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. [59] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:22 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determinat...

3. LCRO 179/2019 HL v [Area] Standards Committee (30 April 2020) [pdf, 181 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:2 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determinati...

4. [2020] NZEnvC 175 Wilkins Farming Co Ltd v Southland Regional Council.pdf [pdf, 6.1 MB]

   ...Mitigation Plan; and 1 6 \ 1;t ,!~[,~~ 0 J t ny additional mitigation measures identified by Condition 2.2_4 of this consent. ~t;~.:,_·:::~-- .. ·:',(~/ ~~-' _:.,•··· t- 20 ~35.The auditor must provide his or her professional judgement on the likely effectiveness of each measure in reducing the risk of contaminant loss to water. This shall be done with reference to a five level scale : very poor, poor, moderate, high or very high. Where the auditor concludes th...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2018] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...been concerned that settlement had been delayed. He had advised Mr Burcher by an email “you should certainly not grant any further tolerance without reference to me”. Despite that direction the practitioner went ahead, exercising his own judgment that he was assisting the purchaser client to complete the larger transaction, which would in turn guarantee settlement of the nominee company matter. [87] Mr Burcher proved correct in his assessment and thus no harm was done. Inde...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Ms A [2022] NZLCDT 51 (22 December 2022) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...to the claim for fees.”12 The finding of misconduct was upheld. The practitioner in that case was a senior practitioner. [34] We acknowledge that a breach of r 2.7 may be treated as unsatisfactory conduct or as misconduct. It is an exercise of judgement. Was the breach connected to the main issue between the parties? [35] In cross-examination, Ms A clarified that the affidavit mentioned in her email was reference to an affidavit she would prepare to assist her client complain to...

7. [2023] NZEnvC 057 Brial v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...aspect of the application.19 That is, we exercise discretion akin to that for an application for a discretionary activity resource consent and may effectively decide to maintain the consent notice in place, vary or cancel it.20 [16] In his judgment dismissing the Brial appeal, Osborne J noted that s104 RMA applies and the decision-maker has to have regard to the effects on the environment and to the relevant planning documents.21 Primarily, those instruments are the Operative...

8. Wilton TRI-2021-100-002 Procedural Order 4 [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...the Tribunal, but which is ultimately rejected. The expression “substantial merit” denotes claims which “do require serious consideration by the Tribunal”. [59] The approach in Trustees Executors found favour in the High Court’s judgment in Clearwater Cove.14 The learned Judge said that the nature of litigation is that one party will generally be unsuccessful. It did not follow that their claims or defences lacked substantial merit. The inquiry into whether there w...

9. NZCVS Evaluation Final Summary Report.pdf [pdf, 460 KB]

   ...stakeholders) and funding applications (from service agencies). • Ministerial briefings. • Policy documents. • System monitoring - including wellbeing monitoring by the Treasury, Stats NZ, and the United Nations. 8 • Justice pipeline work by the Sector Analysis Modelling team. • Strategic targeting and prioritisation of efforts in cross government strategies (for example, evidence used in strategies to eliminate Family and Sexual violence). • Train...

10. Nottingham & Property Bank Realtor Ltd v CAC 10057 & Honey [2014] NZREADT 80 [pdf, 98 KB]

    ...between general appeals and appeals from discretionary decisions is set out at paragraph [32]: [32] But for the present purposes, the important point arising from ‘Austin, Nichols’ is that those exercising general rights of appeal are entitled to judgment in accordance with the opinion of the appellate Court, even where that opinion involves an assessment of fact and degree and entails a value judgment. In this context a general appeal is to be distinguished from an appeal against...