Search Results

1. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 DM expert Dennis Scott [pdf, 364 KB]

   ...- Operative Waiheke County Council District Scheme, 1991. 15. In 2004, I was also prepared and produced landscape evidence and attended the Environment Court hearing on behalf of Auckland City Council on the “Waitemata Infrastructure Ltd” appeal in relation to the then proposed Matiatia Village development. 16. Since that time I have also produced several design concepts for Matiatia Village, including two concepts, in 2006, for an Auckland City Council commissioned urban d...

2. REAA CAC 10017 v Miller [2013] NZREADT 31 [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...CAC 10063 v Jenner Real Estate Ltd [2012] NZREADT 68 where we followed our earlier decision in Cooke v CAC 10031 [2011] NZREADT 27, and noted with approval the following definition of misconduct, set out in a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Pillai and Messiter (No 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197: “Professional misconduct does not arise where there is mere professional incompetence nor deficiencies in the practice of the profession by a practitioner. More is required. Such mis...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 209 McLennan v New Zealand Post Ltd [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...determining whether these actions are sufficiently capable or blameworthy to reduce any award that might otherwise be made; 31 and determining whether these actions are “blameworthy” as a broad inquiry. (d) The majority of the Court of Appeal in Salt v Fell held that s 124 operates as a “contributory negligence” provision. 32 (e) Examples were given of blameworthy conduct that had required the reduction of remedies, including for breach of traffic regulations 33 a...

4. NH v Singh LCRO 53/2013, 91/2013 and 115/2013 (27 August 2014) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review, and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review hearing [21] Mr Singh attended a review hearing on 24 June 2014,...

5. Ringwood v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 44 [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...and care. The position remains however that under the Building Act, the breach of this duty by act or omission must occur within 10 years of proceedings being brought. [71] All three counsel referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Johnson v Watson.7 Again, this case concerned the tortious liability of a builder rather than a developer. In Johnson v Watson Tipping J stated that an act or omission occurs on a particular day and that the starting point of the s...

6. MLC 2017 August Outstanding OCR Applications [pdf, 345 KB]

   ...made at 103 Wairoa MB 244-245 on 11 July 2001 - Application to the Chief Judge A20170004176 58/93 Wero Karena Omahu 4C Section 6 - and an order for confirmation of alienation made at 56 Takitimu MB 233-237 (8 February 2017) - Notice of Appeal and Leave to Appeal Out of Time (Respondents Douglas Whitfield and Mark Alexander) A20170004320 45/93 Toni Ngahiriwa Welsh, John Ernest Welsh Talbot Venus Talbot (nee Welsh) or Venus Tawera Werehi or Whetumarama Welsh - and a...

7. Apostolakis v Rennie (Strike-Out Application) 2017 NZHRRT 42 [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...and 105 of the Human Rights Act. Section 105 requires the Tribunal “to act according to the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities”. That section applies, with necessary modifications, to decisions of this Court on appeal against a decision of the Tribunal: s123(5). [46] The Tribunal has an express power to dismiss proceedings, if satisfied that they are frivolous, vexatious or not brought in good faith: s115. As Mr Laurenson points out, the Tribunal del...

8. LD & KL Trust v MT & HB LCRO 25/2015 (15 April 2016) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...within the prescription of a “mild 19 Letter JK to LCRO (8 April 2016). 20 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 156(1)(d). 11 criticism”. In support of this I refer to the Court of Appeal decision in NZLS v B where the Court said:21 A censure or reprimand, however expressed, is likely to be of particular significance in this context because it will be taken into account in the event of a further complaint against the pract...

9. [2016] NZEmpC 167 Labour Inspector v Tech 5 Recruitment Ltd [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...any authority to support that proposition, although it did draw on a reference to a premium for the grant of a lease as being a common example of what is meant by that word in a similar context. This Court’s judgment in Sears was overturned on appeal but not on this point. [34] Developing that proposition from Sears, Ms Dyhrberg moved on to discuss consideration. She referred to Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd 8 and Attorney-General for England and Wales v...

10. Reihana - Estate of Ngapipi Rewiti Panapa [2017] Chief Judge's MB 238 (2017 CJ 238) [pdf, 505 KB]

    ...1963 at 24 Tauranga MB 311-312, 24 Tauranga MB 322-323 and 25 Tauranga MB 50. 7 Tau v Nga Whanau o Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at [61]. 2017 Chief Judges MB 252 [26] I accept the applicants’ evidence that Thomas and Raymond Reihana were not aware of the failure to include them as successors to the Estate of Ngāpipi Rewiti Panapa, and that expla...