Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 164 Waikato Regional Council v Rawhiti Environmental Park Limited [pdf, 258 KB]

   ...A subsequent Abatement Notice was served on REPL on 21 June 2023 under 9 s 15 RMA to cease unlawful discharge. A further Abatement Notice was served on 23 June 2023 under s 17 RMA to remedy or mitigate the unlawful discharge. REPL appealed these Abatement Notices on 31 July 2023 and applied for a stay on these notices. The Council has since decided to cancel these notices because this process has overtaken them. Immediate issues in August 2023 On 1 August 2023 the Co...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 117 QDY v Counties Manukau District Health Board [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...remove a matter, the party may apply for the special leave of the Court to have the matter removed.19 [20] Removal under s 178 is contemplated in relatively limited circumstances. Some confusion has been caused by a statement from the Court of Appeal reflecting this expectation but then referring to the “particular caution expected in cases that have not been fully investigated by the Authority”.20 Removal under s 178 will only occur in cases that have not been fully investi...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 156 Hoff v The Wood Lifecare Ltd costs [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...he highlighted and stressed the fact that a number of administrative attendances could have been handled by a less experienced person at a lower hourly rate. [23] That criticism is answered, however, in the following passage from the Court of Appeal judgment in Binnie: 9 While details of time involved and charge-out rates are often available and supplied, we do not consider such information is a mandatory requirement in a matter such as this … We have not reached the point wh...

4. Liu & Anor v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 25 [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...responsibility” and concluded that any assessment of contributory negligence turns on the relative blameworthiness and the causal potency of the alleged negligence by the claimant. In O’Hagan v Body Corporate 189855 (Byron Avenue)9 the Court of Appeal concluded that a failure to obtain a LIM may amount to contributory negligence and warrant a 5 Hartley v Balemi HC Auckland, CIV-2006-404-2589, 29 March 2007 at [100] - [1...

5. Eru v Skipper - Awanui Haparapara (2019) 211 Waiariki MB 103 (211 WAR 103) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...Whānau Trust (2017) 56 Takitimu MB 94 (56 TKT 94) at [11] . 5 Chambers v Keepa – Te Hinau A Pura Whānau Trust (2016) 350 Aotea MB 74 (350 AOT 74) at [46]. 6 Larkins v Kaitaia – Waihou Hutoia D2A [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159) at [27]. 7 At [30]. 8 At [24]. 211 Waiariki MB 111 should not give effect to this arrangement. However, the Court is not bound by the outcome of a majority vote either in favour of or in opposition to an appl...

6. Auckland Standards Committee v Hylan [2014] NZLCDT 31 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...facilitation of a dishonest scheme, it was a “one off” incident, there was no personal financial gain, and the Tribunal was provided with glowing references on the practitioner’s behalf. In short, a very similar situation to the current one. On appeal against the Tribunal’s decision to strike off the practitioner, a two years suspension was substituted by Peters J in the High Court. I discern no material features of this 9 Above...

7. River Oaks Farm Ltd & Ors as Trustees of Ingodwe Trust v Olsson [2010] NZWHT Wellington 17 [pdf, 108 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2008-101-000052 [2010] NZWHT WELLINGTON 17 BETWEEN RIVER OAKS FARM LIMITED & C & A M THURNELL & L HORNE AS TRUSTEES OF INGODWE TRUST Claimant AND TIMOTHY OLSSON, CHARLOTTE OLSSON & JOHN CRONIN AS TRUSTEES OF THE PICOLLO TRUST First Respondent AND TIMOTHY OLSSON Second Respondent AND DENTON PERRY Third Respondent AND KENT JARMAN Fourth Respondent AND WARWICK SWEETMAN Fifth Respondent AND MAXI

8. [2020] NZREADT 24 - Schroder (16 June 2020) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...Committee’s costs. This sum is to be paid to the Authority within 40 working days of the date of this decision. [51] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson _________________ Mr G Denley Member ________...

9. Bell v McDonnell - Mataimoana (2017) 374 Aotea MB 298 (374 AOT 298) [pdf, 396 KB]

   ...remove this previous qualification to "tikanga" is consistent with the evolution of te reo Māori to meet modern circumstances and the acknowledgement of changes in social environment in, for example, the broadcasting cases in the Court of Appeal and Waitangi Tribunal. [27] The Court in that case found that:9 Returning then to s,132 (1) & (2)/93, the Court is required "to determine the relative interests of the owners of the land" according to tikanga Māori....

10. LCRO 201/2021 DK obo The LK Estate v BY and FM (31 July 2023) [pdf, 305 KB]

    ...scope of review [50] 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 that...