Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 022 Selwyn District Council v Thorne [pdf, 450 KB]

   ...at the Site, and make a vehicle crossing application. If the application for resource consent or existing use certificate is declined, then Mr Thorne shall have 30 working days from the date of declination (and resolution of any objections or appeals) to achieve compliance with Order 8(b); or (b) relocate the entrance point for the vehicle crossing entrance point for the driveway at least 10m from the 5 intersection and seal the driveway in accordance with the Council...

2. Edwards - Aramiro and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 61863 (2023) 254 Waikato Maniapoto MB 86 (254 WMN 86) [pdf, 522 KB]

   ...the circumstances. The court may have regard to how the encroachment came to be, the conduct of the parties and any unjustified enrichment due to the wrongly placed structure (s 324). [16] In Barry Park Investments Limited v Johnson, the Court of Appeal noted that in terms of relief for wrongly placed structures, “the scope of remedies available under the [Property Law] Act are extensive”.3 The Court considered that while relief was required to be just and equitable, “orders...

3. [2023] NZEmpC 111 Lu v Young [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...Higgs, something more than disappointment at the result in the Authority is required to justify a stay of execution.6 [12] Turning to the factors set out above, there is no evidence that, if the stay is not granted, the plaintiffs’ right of appeal will be rendered ineffectual. I accept that the challenge has been brought and will be pursued in good faith. [13] There is no effect on third parties; nor are there novel or important questions involved in the case. Further, there...

4. Henderson v Henderson - Pakowhai 5B2 (2024) 109 Tākitimu MB 54 (109 TKT 54) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...being unsuitable to hold office.” This approach is consistent with how examples in legislation are to be interpreted, per s 23 of the Legislation Act 2019. 1 Henderson v Brooking – Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17). (d) If one or more of the grounds in s 240(1)(b) are met, the Court must then assess what is desirable for the proper execution of the trust. What is “desirable” does not mean what is necessary, and whether removal...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 154 Hu v Passion Fresh Ltd [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...Checkmate Precision Cutting Tools Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 2; [2015] ERNZ 196. the subsequent expense incurred by both parties would have been avoided.7 This submission drew heavily on Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell.8 The Court of Appeal in that case cautioned that a “steely” approach is required in dealing with the cost consequences of settlement offers made without prejudice save as to costs.9 [18] Bluestar does not provide particular guidance to assist in asses...

6. 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...

7. [2023] NZEmpC 147 Reddy v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...on review (1) Except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or as provided in section 179, no determination, order, or proceedings of the Authority are removable to any court by way of certiorari or otherwise, or are liable to be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or called in question in any court. … (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Authority suffers from lack of jurisdiction only where,— (a) in the narrow and original sense of the term ju...

8. Xi v Body Corporate 198693 (Costs) [2024] NZHRRT 19 [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...obligations to the unit owners. As a consequence of their dissatisfaction the plaintiffs did not pay their 2015 annual body corporate levy. [6] The Body Corporate then took a successful case against the plaintiffs in the Tenancy Tribunal. Ms Tao appealed and thereafter took a number of other unsuccessful actions against the Body Corporate, its Chairperson and Strata.4 Ms Tao’s failure to pay her outstanding levies and subsequent awards of costs made against her ultimately resul...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 185 Greentree NM Catering Ltd (t/a Master Bao) v Wang [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...justice and the general principle that a successful litigant should be entitled to receive the fruits of its success. I accept that Ms Wang would suffer some adverse 9 Although dealing with an application to for an extension of time to file an appeal, the Supreme Court made helpful observations about the necessarily superficial nature of any consideration of the merits of cases at an interlocutory stage in Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801 at [39]. impact i...

10. Proactive Release-Sentencing Reinstating Three-Strikes Amendment Regulations 2025 [pdf, 195 KB]

    ...they know they face escalating penalties if they continue to offend. 13 The Act adds a power to summon an offender to be given a warning which was omitted at the time of sentencing, or to be given a substituted warning for a sentence imposed on appeal in the absence of the offender. The Act also provides for a warrant to arrest the offender to be given a warning if they fail to respond to the summons. I expect these orders to be rare. 14 The Regulations prescribe a summons and warrants...