Search Results

1. Maori Trustee v Hanford - Ohiro 19 and 21 Block 10 (Polhill Gully) (2006) 165 Aotea MB 131 (165 AOT 131) [pdf, 2.4 MB]

   Minute Book: 165 AOT 131 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT Hearing: Counsel: Judgment: Introduction A20050012905 A20050012904 UNDER Sections 135 and 310 ofTe Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Ohiro 19 & 21 Block 10 (Polhill Gully) BETWEEN MAORI TRUSTEE Applicant AND 21, 22, 23 November 2005 (Heard at Wellington) STEPHEN HANFORD RUSSELL RODGERS Respondents Mr G Shaw and Mr H Wilson for the Applicant Mr T Bennion and Ms C Castle...

2. CAC 10064 v Jin [2013] NZREADT 57 [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...now facing the blame for trying to use my best efforts to help two of my friends. 28. This complaint against me only came from Ms Kim after her lawyers, Fortune Manning, had used up all other options without success. I understand they also got a judgment against Mr Choi, but found out that there is no money left and that he had run away. 9 29. I feel this complaint has been motivated by a desire for money, instead of a genuine belief that I had done anything wrong.” The...

3. Hawke v ACC [2013] NZACA 5 [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...BETWEEN DIANE HAWKE Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 15 February 2013 at Auckland Authority: Robyn Bedford Counsel: P Schmidt for appellant; CJ Hlavac for respondent Judgement: 15 April 2013 JURISDICTION RULING AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE APPEAL [1] The respondent seeks leave pursuant to s 111 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982, to appeal to the High Court from the ruling of the Authority...

4. JR v SW LCRO 91/2014 (27 March 2015) [pdf, 99 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.3 The Hearing [17] Both parties were represented at the hearing which took place on 14 November 2014. Mr LB appeared for JR and Mr SW appeared in person. Analysis [18...

5. [2018] NZEnvC 097 Handley v South Taranaki District Council [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   ..."is worded as a pre-condition to 'stages' of the work being carried out".5 In support of that submission, the appellant relies on the High Court decision in Westfield6 It is helpful to refer to the relevant passages from the judgment of Fisher J in full : [59J Of course it would be different if it could be postulated that consents could not be given to certain permitted activities without the imposition of invalid conditions. But I can see no reason for assuming...

6. LCRO 175/2020 PM obo MNO Limited v FS and BL (22 April 2021) [pdf, 221 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. [46] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:12 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee deter...

7. LCRO 195/2017 LH v SR and HP (19 March 2019) [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. [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 determinat...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 207 Sustainable Otakiri Incorporated v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 825 KB]

   ...Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited & Anor v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council,30 Judge Dwyer confirmed the relevant principles and criteria against which the Court's discretion might be exercised as those summarised in the head note of the Judgment in Bell-Booth Group Ltd v Attorney-Genera/:31 1. The ordering of security for costs is discretionary. 2. There is no burden one way or the other. It is. a discretion to be exercised in all the circumstances of the case. 3. In...

9. Tamplin v Boizard [2021] NZHRRT 42 [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...with Mr Tamplin and the phone call on 13 August 2015. That is not to say this decision was inevitable, but simply that the Tribunal is satisfied it was objectively reasonable given all the factors before Dr Boizard at the time and his professional judgment on those matters. [43] The standard set in the r 11(1)(a)(ii) exception to the requirement not to disclose health information is not the same standard as that in the PPPR Act. The HIPC requires a reasonable belief that someone is un...

10. LCRO 173/2021 KC v TG (6 May 2022) [pdf, 237 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. [37] In a later decision, the High Court described a review by a Review Officer in the following way:11 [2] … A review by [a Review Officer] is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a r...