Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 196 Dromgool v Minister for Land Information [pdf, 146 KB]

   /SEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC I 9 b of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act DROMGOOL (ENV-2017-AKL-101) POULTON (ENV-2017 -AKL-1 02) NEWMAN FARMS LIMITED (ENV-2017-AKL-103) Objectors MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION Respondent Court: Environment Judge JA Smith Environment Commissioner ACE Leijnen Environment Commissioner 1M Buch...

2. Auckland District Law society v Faleauto [2010] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...parties to file submissions on penalty. Those submissions have since been received and considered. 2. The three charges proven are particularised in our decision of 21 December 2009, but in general terms involved; 2.1 Misconduct under S. 101(6) Law Practitioners Act 1982 (refusing or failing to comply with a requirement to provide documents); 2.2 Failing to render an invoice or bill of costs to a client in respect of fees; and, 2.3 Obtaining, and attempting to obtain, money...

3. Abyaneh v Auckland City Council [pdf, 20 KB]

   ...claimants did not accept the Calderbank Offer. 4 Simpson Family Trust Decision 10. Mr Asad Ali referred to the decision in Trustees Executors Ltd (trustee for the Simpson Family Trust) v Wellington City Council & Ors, WHT, TRI 2007-101-000029 (30 May 2008) in which the adjudicator ordered costs against both the claimant and the ninth respondent. In reaching that decision the adjudicator found that the claimant had wrongly rejected an offer prior to adjudicatio...

4. [2021] NZEnvC 102 Bay of Islands Maritime Park Incorporated v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...Appendix 5; 8.3 Appendix 7. 100379837/1715558.0 4 Mark Semmens Evidence in Chief [EB Tab 47) 9 Paragraphs: 9.1 [10] to [11] inclusive; 9.2 [13]; 9.3 [16] to [18] inclusive. Mark Ngata Evidence in Chief [EB Tab 46] 10 Paragraphs: 10.1 [26] to [28] inclusive; 10.2 Table at paragraph [26]; 10.3 Map at paragraph [28] Graeme Bailey Evidence in Chief [EB Tab 45] 11 Paragraphs: 11.1 [16] to [20] inclusive; 11.2 [22] to [24] inclusive; 11.3 [32]; 11.4 [36]. Agreed...

5. BORA Corrections Bill Appendix 1 [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...or determination. Footnotes: 1. Diane Pretty (Application No. 2346/02) para 52 2. Police v. Smith and Herewini [1994] 2 NZLR 306, 316; (1993) 11 CRNZ 78, 88; per Richardson J. 3. UN Human Rights Committee 305/88 4. Neilsen v A-G 3/5/01, CA101/00 5. General Comment 21[44], adopted on 3/04/1992

6. NZ Private Prosecution Service Ltd v Key (Service of Statement of Claim) [2015] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...of ensuring that both the plaintiff and defendant must serve all documents on her (or her authorised representative). As the case progresses she can make a decision whether to utilise s 108. Directions [10] The following directions are made: [10.1] Service of the proceedings on Rt Hon John Key is to be effected in terms of Regulations 12 and 13 of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 but in a manner consistent with the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 and the 2014 Stand...

7. BORA Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...does not comply with the requirements under s 229. 1 See, for example, Slaight Communications v Davidson 59 DLR (4th) 416; Wooley v Maynard 430 US 705 (1977). 2 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. 16. We consider the extension of the powers under s 229 to a wider set of circumstances constitutes a search for the purposes of s 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. Ordinarily, a provision foun...

8. AP v ZB LCRO 50/2015 (31 March 2015) [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...delay uplifting the email (he had been advised of its arrival) cannot be advanced as reasonable argument for displacing the requirement that a 2 Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill 2010 (120-1), cl 10.1. 4 review application be filed within 30 days of the determination being served. Mr AP acknowledges that he received notification of the email’s arrival. [16] There are two critical elements to s 198. Firstly, the section e...

9. Central Standards Committee 3 v Sawyer [2022] NZLCDT 38 (28 October 2022) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...Rule 2.3 provides: A lawyer must not use, or knowingly assist in using, the law or legal processes for the purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to another person’s reputation, interests, or occupation. Rule 10.1 provides:23 A lawyer must treat other lawyers with respect and courtesy. Rule 13.1 provides: A lawyer has an absolute duty of honesty to the court and must not mislead or deceive the court. Rule 13.2 states: A lawyer must not...

10. Hines v Attorney-General (Application by Non-Party to be Heard) [2017] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 153 KB]

    ...decision of the Tribunal addressing s 108 is Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust (Application by Victims to be Heard) [2013] NZHRRT 26. In that decision at [17] to [20] the Tribunal made the following observations: [10.1] In determining whether it has been “satisfied” that a non-party has an interest in the proceedings greater than the public generally, the Tribunal will be required to balance competing interests. On the one hand there may be a c...