Search Results

1. [2021] NZEnvC 096 Northland District Health Board v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 9.7 MB]

   Court: IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TAMAKI MAKAURAU IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND Judge J A Smith Commissioner S C Myers 1 Decision [2021] NZEnvC o:\6 an appeal under Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) in relation to Topic 8 Agrichemicals of the proposed Northland Regional Plan POPULATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT OF THE NORTHLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD (ENV-2019-AKL-126) HORTICULTURE NEW Z...

2. Pinnock & Ors as Trustees of the Pinnock Trust v Auckland City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 28 [pdf, 373 KB]

   ...claim that was filed with the Department of Building and Housing in August 2008 was based on the same cause of action that accrued in 2001, that is economic loss as a result of leaks. He further relied on Pullar v The Queen2 where the Court of Appeal concluded at paragraph 19: “It is not necessary, in order for time to start running, to be able to pin point with precision the exact cause of every defect. Indeed, that would frequently mean time will not start running until...

3. [2009] NZEmpC CC 10/09 Rooney Earthmoving Ltd v McTague and ors [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...Cooke J found that even during the time Mr Schilling was regarded as being on leave during the second week of his notice, the contract of service and the relationship continued until the last day. Cooke J, consistently with the later Court of Appeal decision Morris v Interchem Agencies Ltd, concluded: It seems to me however, that in February, instead of negotiating for himself, Schilling was bound to take reasonable steps to enable Kidd Garrett to retain the agency. In a sense,...

4. [2022] NZEnvC 264 Willowridge Developments Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 2.2 MB]

   WILLOWRIDGE DEVELOPMENTS LTD & ORS v QLDC – TOPIC 28 TRANSPORT IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2022] NZEnvC 264 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND of appeals under clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Act BETWEEN WILLOWRIDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (ENV-2019-CHC-17) …(continued on separate page) Appellants AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge J J...

5. Saffioti & Anor v Ward & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 17 [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...it is unnecessary for us to reach a firm conclusion on the total claimable cost of the remedial work. General Damages [33] Mr and Mrs Saffioti have applied for general damages of $60,000. The Sunset Terraces and Byron Avenue3 Court of Appeal decisions establish that the appropriate measure of general damages depends on individual circumstances. However, for owner occupiers the usual award will be in the vicinity of $25,000. White J in Coughlan v Abernethy4 confirmed tha...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 162 Birthing Centre Ltd v Matsas [pdf, 445 KB]

   ...of s 4(4)(d) of the Act does not include a consultant’s proposal or recommendation for an employer to consider but, if adopted or pursued by the employing Council, is a proposal for the purposes of that section. [63] The case proceeded on appeal before a full Court of the Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed, but the status of the consultant’s report was not in issue.63 [64] Speaking generally as regards the obligation of good faith, the Court of Appeal said this regardin...

7. [2017] NZEmpC 87 Below v The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...Conditions of Employment Act 1977, an employee was one who performed services in return for remuneration, which was not the position of student teachers; and that the position was not very different from that discussed by the English Court of Appeal in Wynn. Other decisions were referred to, which it was submitted, were broadly to similar effect: Teen Ranch Pty Ltd v Brown; 12 Caccippoli v Board of Trustees of Edmond Hillary School; 13 Vegar v Albany Students’ Association;...

8. Mayfair Street Units v Spargo [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...duty to someone else, the creation of a class of non-delegable duties seems to be self- contradictory... No single unifying principle is associated with the cases in which a non-delegable duty has been held to exist.” [25] Even the Court of Appeal noted the difficulties concerning non- delegable duty saying it was difficult to state clear principles (at p31). In Mt Albert Borough Council v Johnson a development company which had acquired and subdivided land and homes built on...

9. Carter v Tulip Holdings Ltd [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...such permit or building consent was obtained for those works and they were completed in compliance with that permit or consent, and where appropriate, a code compliance certificate was issued for those works. [73] The decision of the Court of Appeal in Riddell v Porteous [1999] 1 NZLR 1 is authority in New Zealand that a vendor will be liable to a purchaser CLAIM NO.00692 – CARTER DETERMINATION.doc 23 for a breach of warranty that building work done or caused or permitted...

10. [2017] NZEmpC 71 Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken Ltd [pdf, 497 KB]

    ...company’s argument to be that cl 5 effectively had no application because it had formed a view that there were no available positions which might have suited Ms Stormont. [77] It is convenient to begin with basic principle. As the Court of Appeal stated in AFFCO NZ Ltd v NZMW & Related Trades Union Inc:19 Contracts of employment are subject to the same rules of interpretation as apply to all contracts. The express terms are the central focus of an interpretative assessme...