Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 027 AJ & VF Barr Family Trust v Whakatane District Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   AJ AND VF BARR FAMILY TRUST v WHAKĀTANE DISTRICT COUNCIL IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2023] NZEnvC 027 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN AJ AND VF BARR FAMILY TRUST (ENV-2022-AKL-022) Appellant AND WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Judge J A Smith Environment Commissioner R M Bartlett Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds...

2. O'Connor v MacDee McLennan Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 67 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...affected. Due to the financial pressures they could not attend their niece’s wedding in Melbourne. [35] Generally an award of $25,000 per unit for occupiers is made based on the decisions of William Young P and Baragwanath J in the Court of Appeal in O’Hagan v Body Corporate 189855 [2010] NZCA 65, [2010] NZLR 445 [Byron Ave], Mok v Bolderson HC Auckland CIV 2010 404 7292, 20 April 2011 and Cao v Auckland City Council HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-7093, 18 May 2011. Accordingly,...

3. Boase - Wharengaere No 3 (2019) 205 Taitokerau MB 227 (205 TTK 227) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...appoint a trustee, the Court shall have regard to the ability, experience, and knowledge of the person and shall not make an appointment unless it is satisfied that the person is broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [14] The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the appointment of trustees.1 In that case the Court confirmed that the views of the beneficiaries will be compelling, unless there are relevant disqualifying considerations:2...

4. National Standards Committee v Jefferies [2016] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...3 [7] Mr Jefferies pleaded guilty in August of 2015, following a negotiation over the summary of facts. This was over a year after being charged. He was sentenced to total fines of $1,300, having sought a discharge without conviction. On appeal the sentence was upheld. [8] Unsurprisingly Mr Jefferies’ offending attracted considerable media attention. Submissions on seriousness [9] Mr Davey, on behalf of the National Standards Committee drew the Tribunal’s attention to...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 182 Fletcher v Sharp Studhope Lawyers [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...Mr Fletcher submitted that the Authority’s investigation is awaiting the completion of mediation, which is currently adjourned. He says that the requested documents are important for the mediation process because a mediation result cannot be appealed and any factual or legal anomaly carried into mediation cannot subsequently be corrected. It is accordingly submitted that significant irreversible consequences will be suffered if his challenge cannot proceed. I do not accept this...

6. ED v VV LCRO 229 / 2010 (15 June 2011) - Costs Decision [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...that type of behaviour were summarised by Sheppard J in Colgate Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248, which was adopted by Goddard J in Hedley v Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Limited (2002) 16 PRNZ 694 and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corp [2009] 3 NZLR 400. The summary provided by Sheppard J is as follows:- 1. The making of allegations of fraud knowing them to be false and the making of irrelevant allegations of fraud; 2. Partic...

7. Gemmell v Hemana - Mohaka A4 (2017) 61 Tākitimu MB 239 (61 TKT 239) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...1 Mr Hemana was appointed sole responsible trustee on 19 December 2014 at 36 Takitimu MB 254 (36 TKT 254) 2 144 Napier MB 93-94 (144 NA 93-94) 3 [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 657 (2015 APPEAL 657) 61 Tākitimu MB 241 [6] From 1996 until approximately 2005 the Tauwhareroa trust effectively administered the Mohaka A4 block, contrary to the Mohaka A4 Trust’s role as trustee. The Tauwhareroa trust received income due to t

8. LCRO 20/2016 LC and CM v JP - Orders (5 April 2019) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...clear on the face of the Act whether there is a distinction between a censure and a reprimand. The matter was considered in New Zealand Law Society v B. The High Court had considered that a censure was a more serious rebuke. This was rejected on appeal, when it was stated: Both words envisage a disciplinary tribunal, here a Standard Committee, making a formal or official statement rebuking a practitioner for his or her unsatisfactory conduct. A censure or reprimand, however expresse...

9. [2019] NZEmpC 137 Independent Prosperity Ltd v Huang [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...application was based on undue hardship to the company, not concerns about an ability to recoup money paid to Ms Huang if the challenge succeeds. [23] This factor points away from granting a stay. Brought in good faith? [24] Mr Nguy submitted that the appeal was brought in good faith. He emphasised that the company had cooperated in the Authority investigation and in the timetabling for the challenge so that it can be disposed of expeditiously. [25] I accept that the challenge...

10. LCRO 1/2018 SY v LT and LN (17 December 2019) [pdf, 224 KB]

    ...scope of review [57] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:6 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for tha...