Search Results

1. Rule 5.11 - Notification of applications outstanding as at 31 August 2016 [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...2011 A20120003744 13/03/2012 CJ 2012/02 - Pouaka Ngoungou - and succession orders made at 46 Waikato Maniapoto MB 353 on 15/11/1968 - Application to the Chief Judge 45/93 Hinemoa Inkster 1. Awaiting Administrative Action A20120007050 28/05/2012 Appeal 2012/4 - Mangatainoka No 1BC No 2C, Tamaki 2A1C Part (Lot DP7840) and Tamaki 2A2A (Balance) also known as Ngawapurua and Rua Roa Trusts - and a decision made at 15 Takitimu MB 4-14 on 29/3/2012 (A2007_11677 and A2008_3422) - and a decisi...

2. ENV-2016-AKL-000187 England Spring Street Residents v Auckland Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   Notice of appeal to Environment Court against decision on proposed Auckland combined plan Dated: 16 September 2016 Before the Environment Court In the matter of: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) - Appeal against decision on proposed Auckland combined plan – s 156(1) of the LGATPA – Topics 062, 063 & 081/083 - Rule H6.6.6 Height in relation to boundary – Residential – Terrac...

3. [2019] NZEmpC 65 Rayner v Director-General of Health [pdf, 795 KB]

   AMANDA RAYNER v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH [2019] NZEmpC 65 [27 May 2019] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2019] NZEmpC 65 EMPC 439/2018 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN AMANDA RAYNER Plaintiff AND DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH Defendant EMPC 30/2019 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a

4. Young people & infringement fines: a qualitative study [pdf, 139 KB]

   Young People and Infringement Fines: A Qualitative Study Prepared for the Ministry of Justice by Litmus Limited October 2005 2 DISCLAIMER This research was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. The report has been prepared by the research company and the views expressed in it are those of the research company and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ministry of Justice. First published in October 2005 by the Ministry of Justice PO Box 180 Wellington New Zealand ISBN 0-

5. [2020] NZEnvC 211 Panuku Development Auckland Ltd v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   ...,,,,._ ~ ~i 3/ BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I MUA I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA Kl TAMAKI MAKAURAU IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2020] NZEnvC 2( \ of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (ENV-2018-AKL-000176) Appellant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent R Peters and R Bannan R Dexter and A Modrow N Smith P Lange L Whiley s 27 4 parties Court: E...

6. [2024] NZEnvC 089 Shundi Queenstown Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 14 MB]

   SHUNDI v QLDC – FINAL DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 89 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN SHUNDI QUEENSTOWN LIMITED (ENV-2020-CHC-85) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Environment Commissioner J T Baines Hearing: In Chambers on the papers Last case eve...

7. [2024] NZEnvC 173 Habitus Group Limited v Christchurch City Council [pdf, 23 MB]

   CONSENT ORDER – HABITUS GROUP LTD v CCC IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 173 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN HABITUS GROUP LIMITED (ENV-2024-CHC-7) Appellant AND CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge K G Reid – sitting alone under s279 of the Act In Chambers at Christchurch Date of Consent Order: 18 July 2024...

8. [2007] NZEmpC AC 17/07 Housham v Juken NZ Limited [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...that awards for such consequences will usually fall in a range up to about $27,0001, the consequences of his unjustified summary dismissal and the circumstances of it warrant a substantial but not excessive award. Taking account of the Court of Appeal’s guidelines in this area and, to the extent that this is possible, comparing Mr Housham’s suffering to that of other grievants, I assess that there should be an award of compensation under s123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relation...

9. [2007] NZEmpC WC 32A/07 Port of Napier Ltd v Maritime Union of NZ Inc [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...and investigation by the Employment Relations Authority. This is not a novel proposition: it has long been the approach of the courts illustrated by cases such as Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 1 ERNZ 354, followed in the Court of Appeal in Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917. [42] A further discretionary factor against the grant of injunctive relief is the apparent lack of consultation by the employer with either the employees or their union about...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 11 NZ PSA v Secretary for Justice [pdf, 77 KB]

    ...bargaining; and (ii) communications or correspondence (between or on behalf of the parties before, during, or after negotiations) that relate to the bargaining [43] The leading case determining what is “bargaining” is the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Christchurch City Council v Southern Local Government Officers Union Inc.4 Although that case dealt with whether communications from an employer to employees represented by a union in collective bargaining amounted to the c...