Search Results

1. Owen v Hauiti - Kiwinui A (2016) 57 Tairawhiti MB 70 (57 TRW 70) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...order in favour of a non-owner. However, an order vesting interests in the land or a right to possession of the land (or part of it) in favour of a non-owner will likely offend the kaupapa and provisions of the Act. Although in Grace the Court of Appeal did not completely rule out that possibility. Where the Court concludes that a non-owner is entitled to equitable relief, the Court will in the first place look to awarding monetary compensation. If monetary compensation is inappropr...

2. E v IAG New Zealand Ltd (3rd decision – quantum) [2019] CEIT-2019-0013 [pdf, 596 KB]

   ...agreed to build a house with foundations built using a specified concrete mix.14 The correct mix was not used, and the house was unstable with risk of collapse. The trial judge found that the only remedy was to demolish and rebuild. It was argued on appeal that the rebuild cost, which was more than the value of the original contract, was unreasonable and only the loss of market value should be awarded. This was rejected due to significance of the breach, which went to the heart of the...

3. LCRO 27/2021 BK v RQ (27 August 2021) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...scope of review [35] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … 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 that...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 032 South Epsom Planning Group Incorporated v Auckland Council [pdf, 32 MB]

   IBEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Court: Parties: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2016] NZEnvC 0 3 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of appeals pursuant to clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Act SOUTH EPSOM PLANNING GROUP INCORPORATED AND THREE KINGS UNITED GROUP INCORPORATED (ENV-2016-AKL-01 ) NGATI TE ATA WAIOHUA AND NGATI TAMAOHO TRUST (ENV-2015-AKL -158) Appellants AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent FLETCHER RESIDENTIAL LIMITED Applica...

5. LCRO 35/2017 QK v JF and EG (29 May 2019) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...scope of review [25] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … 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...

6. Kauikia-Stevens v Trustees of the Rangitatau 1D5A1 Block (2014) 318 Aotea MB 217 (318 AOT 217) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...chattel. There is no ability to succeed to any such order, it not being an interest in land and the order is treated as being personal to the holder and lapsing on death. 14 (2007) 7 Whangarei Appeal MB 19 (7 APWH 19) 318 Aotea MB 230 Anyone who wishes to sustain a further claim for the house needs to apply for another order. [53] More recently in Stock v Morris – Wainui 2D2B Judge Ambler acknowledges that there is competing...

7. Henare v Horowhenua District Council - Hokio A, Part Hokio A and Hokio Maori Township (2013) 310 Aotea MB 292 (310 AOT 292) [pdf, 502 KB]

   ...defendant contended that the accretion claimed is a true accretion formed largely before 1920, while acknowledging that the land has since then become higher and drier due to the activities of the River Board and the dumping of the spoil. The Court of Appeal held that the building-up of that portion of the Waiwhetu Stream claimed by the defendant riparian owner was not wholly due to accretion, but was, as to the major portion, due to artificial works. [134] Eldridge v Beange is a m...

8. [2019] NZEmpC 172 Cowan v Idea Services Ltd [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...that the Court’s task is to examine objectively the employer’s decision-making process and determine whether what the employer did, and how it was done, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done.9 Subsequently, the Court of Appeal in A Ltd v H, discussed s 103A and observed:10 [46] It is apparent that the effect of the statute is that there may be a variety of ways of achieving a fair and reasonable result in a particular case. As the Court in Angus observed,...

9. Wanoa v Wanoa - Succession to Rawiri Wanoa [2023] Chief Judge's MB 186 (2023 CJ 186) [pdf, 528 KB]

   ...to that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.5 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:6 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court...

10. LCRO 162/2015 and 66/2016 IA v CMR (31 July 2017) [pdf, 253 KB]

    ...scope of review [90] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:15 … 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 th...