Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. [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...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. LCRO 59/2021 RY v QX (21 December 2022) [pdf, 255 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. [55] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:19 18 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 19 Deliu v Connell [2016] NZHC 361, [2016...

7. 25072025-Electoral-Amendment-Bill [pdf, 581 KB]

   ...disqualification for prisoners (that was subsequently enacted and then repealed), addressed the reasons why justification could not be established.7 These reasons were subsequently endorsed by the High Court in Taylor v Attorney-General (and this aspect of the judgment was not challenged on appeal).8 The principal reason may be said to be that a blanket disqualification “disenfranchises in an irrational 2 Electoral Act 1993 ss 80(1)(d), 86A-86E. 3 Report of the Attorney-General unde...

8. Transcript - Dunedin - Hearing - PC7 - 17 May to 20 May 2021 [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH ENV-2020-CJC-127 IN THE MATTER OF The Resource Management Act 1991 AND Of a notice of motion under section 149T(2) to decide proposed Plan Change 7 to the Regional Plan: Water for Otago (referred to the Environment Court by the Minister for the Environment under section 142(2)(b) of the Act) OTAGO RETIONAL COUNCIL Applicant Hearing Commenced: 17 May 2021 in Dunedin Court: Environment Judge J E Bo

9. BORA Public Health Bill [pdf, 617 KB]

   Public Health Bill 22 November 2007 Attorney-General LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: PUBLIC HEALTH BILL 1. On 14 November 2007, we provided you with preliminary advice as to whether the Public Health Bill (PCO 7138/21) ('the Bill') is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ('the Bill of Rights Act'). We have now had an opportunity to review version 22 (PCO 7138/22) of the Bill. We understand that the Bill

10. [2018] NZEmpC 60 FGH v RST [pdf, 720 KB]

    ...Authority BETWEEN FGH Plaintiff AND RST Defendant Hearing: 27 – 29 March 2018 (Heard at Wellington) Appearances: S Henderson, counsel for plaintiff S Dyhrberg and A Clarke, counsel for defendant Judgment: 1 June 2018 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Table of contents Introduction ................................................................................................................ .. [1] Issues ..............