Search Results

1. 2023-10-13-Notice-of-motion.pdf [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...were received, of which 5 were partially or fully in support and 41 were opposed. The number and nature of the submissions received indicates that the Application is contentious. Any decision by the Council in the first instance would likely be appealed to the Environment Court. (f) It would be more efficient in terms of cost and time for all parties and interested persons for the Application to be heard and determined by the Environment Court instead of Council. (g) The Appli...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 3 Tupe v The Board of Trustees of Te Manawa O Tuhoe Trust [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...Supreme Court noted in Almond v Read that the merits will not generally be relevant where there has been an insignificant delay as a result of a legal adviser’s error and the proposed respondents have suffered no prejudice (beyond the fact of an appeal).10 The qualifier “generally” was used as it was accepted there were circumstances where the lack of merit is so obvious that the Court is justified in refusing to extend time.11 The question then is whether there is that obvi...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 213 Coneburn Preserve Holdings Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   ...HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS v QLDC – TOPIC 22 – DETERMINATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2022] NZEnvC 213 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act BETWEEN CONEBURN PRESERVE HOLDINGS LIMITED & OTHERS (ENV-2018-CHC-137) Appellants AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Env...

4. Tan v New Zealand Police (costs) [2017] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...of Police (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 31. [6.8.4] On the other hand, understanding and compassion are equally important. See Meek v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 28 and Andrews v Commissioner of Police (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 31 upheld on appeal in Commissioner of Police v Andrews [2015] NZHC 745 at [65], [68] and [73] to [74]. DISCUSSION [11] In our view the Police correctly submit Ms Tan’s conduct of the case needlessly added to the difficulty and cost of the proceedings....

5. Williamson v Tangilanu [2012] NZIACDT 18 (8 May 2012) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...either publication, or non-publication of decisions. However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [41] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: “[T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the r...

6. WA v AD LCRO 132/2012 (18 March 2015) [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Discussion 6 At [28]....

7. [2020] NZEmpC 176 Gates v DC Cladding and Re-Clad Solutions Ltd [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...impose a sanction for non- compliance.10 In this case I consider a fine is the appropriate sanction and that is consistent with the submission made by Mr Mathews, advocate for the plaintiff, at the hearing. In Peter Reynolds the Court of Appeal indicated that a range of factors will be relevant in assessing the level of a fine. Those factors include the nature of the default (deliberate or wilful), whether it is repeated, without excuse or explanation, and whether it is on...

8. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v Giddens [2014] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...decisions which had involved breach of undertakings, firstly to establish that the offence of misconduct had been committed rather than the negligence or unsatisfactory conduct alternatives. In particular we were referred to the dicta of the Court of Appeal in W v Auckland Standards Committee 3 of the New Zealand Law Society,1 [17] At paragraph 48 the Court said: where at paragraph 47 the importance of undertaking was reaffirmed by the Court. “There may be cases where a breac...

9. C v H LCRO 49 / 2009 (27 May 2009) [pdf, 21 KB]

   ...raised until very late in the day and was in fact not raised at all in the rent review process itself (which appears to have been finally resolved by agreement). It is fair to say that the point is a highly technical one. [14] The Court of Appeal has stated that a lawyer is not liable "for mistake in a nice and difficult point of law but he must measure up to the degree of professional competence which would be exercised by the reasonably competent and careful solicitor in...

10. ACG Ltd v ZXX Ltd [2011] NZDT 157 (9 May 2011) [pdf, 112 KB]

    ...to be a breach of the Act irrespective of what knowledge ZXX Ltd may or may not have had at the time it made the representation. [8] There appears to have been considerable discussion at the first hearings of this claim and the subsequent appeal in relation to the applicability of the shipping labels and the two per cent allowance for impurities noted on them. The applicability of the labels was also discussed at today’s hearings and I had the benefit of hearing from Mr JN, a...