Search Results

1. EV v IG LCRO 111/2013 (8 September 2015) [pdf, 100 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.13 Review [37] Mr EV advances four essential grounds in support of his review, as follows: • The Standards Committee was wrong to resolve a factual dispute on the...

2. Knight - Estate of Rewiti Te Rakaherea [2019] Chief Judge's MB 74 (2019 CJ 74) [pdf, 374 KB]

   ...KNIGHT Applicant A20180007858 UNDER Section 43 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Reweti Te Rakahera – Rehearing of application A20090018306 CHRISTINE HAYDE Applicant Judgment: 29 March 2019 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE FOX Copies to: Daniel Baxter, Le Pine & Co, Solicitors, PO Box 140 Taupo 3351 Kylee Katipo, McCaw Lewis, Solicitors, PO...

3. Scott v Hori - Estate of Wharepouri Paoro [2018] Chief Judge's MB 871 (2018 CJ 871) [pdf, 375 KB]

   ...necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or omission. [16] The principles that are applied to s 45 decisions have been previously set out in numerous decisions made by the Chief Judge and myself. These are to be found in the judgments Ashwell - Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell)2 and in Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy - Waihao 903 Section IX Block.3 I do not propose to repeat those principles again in this judgment. [17] However, for the benefit o...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 148 Lean Meats Oamaru Ltd v NZ Meat Workers Union [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED Defendant Hearing: (on the papers dated 24 and 25 August 2015 ) Counsel: J Bates, counsel for the plaintiff P Churchman QC, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 31 August 2015 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Introduction [1] This interlocutory judgment deals with admissibility objections which have been raised on behalf of the plaintiff. The main one is that cert...

5. Complaints Assessment Committee 10020 v McDonald [2018] NZREADT 67 [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd [2013] 1 NZLR 804, at [28]. [14] Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd4 provides some guidance. That case was concerned with the possible recall and alteration of a judgment. The issue in the present case is whether the same broad policy considerations are applicable to an application of the present kind to now revisit the case and make an order ancillary to the main decision, that order being one for r...

6. Recommendations recap - issue 6 [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...remain buoyant, as well as functionally impairing their ability to cope. Both men also had traces of methamphetamine and cannabis in their system. It is not possible to say to what extent they were affected by either of these substances, but their judgement and ability to handle the situation was probably impaired. The men were not wearing lifejackets, and there were none in the boat. They had a cellphone for communication, but it was wet and stopped working. They had no radios, flare...

7. [2007] NZEmpC AC 51A/07 Maritime Union of NZ and ors v TLNZ Ltd and anor [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...TLNZ LTD First Defendant AND TLNZ AUCKLAND LIMITED Second Defendant Hearing: 5 September 2007 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: Simon Mitchell and Helen White, Counsel for Plaintiffs CH Toogood QC and Nikki Dines, Counsel for Defendants Judgment: 7 September 2007 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE GL COLGAN Nature of preliminary issue [1] The issue now for decision before this case starts on 10 September 2007 is whether several of the defendants’ intended...

8. [2025] NZEmpC 159 McCormack v Reserve Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...STEPHEN MCCORMACK Plaintiff AND RESERVE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Defendant Hearing: 26 June 2025 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: J Plunket, counsel for plaintiff P Chemis and N Raman, counsel for defendant Judgment: 28 July 2025 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M S KING Introduction [1] On 17 January 2022 the plaintiff, Mr McCormack, commenced employment with the defendant, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (the RBNZ), as a senior analyst. [...

9. LCRO 52/2022 AD v OC (12 July 2024) [pdf, 244 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. [39] The High Court has also described a review by the LCRO 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 determination are en...

10. Lewis & Ors [2011] NZWHT Auckland 13 [pdf, 87 KB]

    ...word “built” needs to be given its natural and ordinary meaning which he took to be the point at which the house was physically constructed. Ultimately however, the Court concluded that a decision as to when a house was built was a matter of judgment based on all the information that is available to the decision maker. [11] Lang J accepted that in cases where a house passes its final inspection at the first attempt, the date upon which the owner sought the final inspection...