Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 129 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society v Canterbury Regional Council [pdf, 7 MB]

   ...invalidity of the Advice Note: 1B 19 20 21 22 (a) it notes the potential for the practice of issuing such advice notes to undermine the RMA's plan-making processes (including in terms of public participation and associated rights of appeal to the Environment Court). 19 It makes the obvious point that the Zone Committee, a creature of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy ('CWMS'), is not a va lid substitute for those processes;20 (b) it points to the poten...

2. Morehu v Māori Trustee - Tokerau A14B2 (2007) 313 Rotorua MB 256 (313 ROT 256) [pdf, 6.7 MB]

   ...Rotorua MB 271 being held on resulting trust. According to Garrow & Kelly in the case of an inter vivos trust there will be a resulting trust to the settlor, para 14.15.3 . [24] The concept of the resulting trust was considered by the COUlt of Appeal in the decision Potter v Potter [2003] 3 NZLR 145. Fisher J, at p152, confirmed that the essence of a resulting trust in that a person providing or contributing to the purchase price of propelty conveyed paltly or wholly into the na...

3. Crosswell v Auckland City Council [pdf, 92 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2008-100-000107 BETWEEN GERARD MICHAEL CROSSWELL and CHRISTINE DAWN CROSSWELL as trustees of the CROSSWELL FAMILY TRUST Claimants AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND ROBERT MEDEMBLIK (Now Removed) Second Respondent AND GRANT MALONE Third Respondent AND ROSS SUTHERLAND (Now Removed) Fourth Respondent AND STEPHEN BASKETT and CRAIG BRACKEN (Now Removed) Fifth Respondents AND CARL RUFFLES Sixth R

4. ENV-2016-CHC-000047 Blueskin Energy Limited v Dunedin City Council - Evidence - Janet Stephenson [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY ENV-2016-CHC-47 IN THE MATTER of an appeal under Section 120 Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN BLUESKIN ENERGY LIMITED Appellant AND DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL Respondent BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF JANET RHONA STEPHENSON _____________________________________________________________ GALLAWAY COOK ALLAN LAWYERS DUNEDIN Solicitor on record: B Irving Sol...

5. Vivash v Accident Compensation Corporation [2020] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...obligation to determine delayed incapacity was that of the case manager at the time. Because the file had been 12 destroyed there was no evidence the issue had ever been addressed or that Mr Vivash had been made aware of the decision and of his appeal rights. [44] It is clear from the medical evidence reviewed earlier in this decision that the 1982 and 1985 accidents have in fact led to progressive degeneration. This underlines the point that a retention policy which hinges on t...

6. [2019] NZEmpC 98 Noble v Ballooning Canterbury.com Ltd [pdf, 565 KB]

   ...the IRD, and his 4 Clark v Northland Hunt Incorporated (2006) 4 NZELR 23 at [22], applying Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung [1990] 2 AC 374. 5 McGrath J in the dissenting judgment of the Court of Appeal: Three Foot Six Ltd v Bryson [2004] 2 ERNZ 526. employment status, and that he believed he insisted he was an employee and that BCL would have to take the tax off. By contrast, he told the Authority that there was no menti...

7. IWCNZ-Submissions-on-Scope.pdf [pdf, 366 KB]

   ...taken as setting what constitutes the bare minimum for coroners when considering how to determine scope, though they may choose to be more flexible and permissive in approach. 26 In Coroner for the Birmingham Inquests v Hambleton,28 the Court of Appeal underscored that a coroner will be guided in making decisions on scope by what is “necessary, desirable and proportionate”: the same standard set out in the aid to Judge Marshall’s minute in this case. 23 [1995] QB 1. 24 A...

8. Contract-for-services.pdf [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...of the Act) 3.10.3. that a court has made an order relating to costs under section 45 of the Act, and 3.10.4. of any matter that materially decreases the prospects of success of the aided person’s matter at first instance, or the merits of any appeal. 3.11. Sub-clause 3.10.4 does not apply to defence of criminal charges at first instance. 3.11.A The Provider must immediately notify the Commissioner a soon as they become aware of a privacy breach (as defined in clause 3.22 of this C...

9. Nicholson v Pene - Tauakira No. 2M No.4 (2023) 477 Aotea MB 140 (477 AOT 140) [pdf, 442 KB]

   ...exists. But there must be a link between the applications and the statutory power where jurisdiction is sourced. Such a link does not exist on the facts here. See also Melrose v Porter – Torere Section 58 [2022] Māori Appellate Court MB 209 (2022 APPEAL MB 209). 33 Section 30A, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. 477 Aotea MB 150 (a) to enable and encourage applicants and persons affected by an application under section 30 to resolve their differences concerning represen...

10. Nuri - Succession to Piri Tuari [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1401 (2025 CJ 1401) [pdf, 2 MB]

    ...that takes 2025 Chief Judge's MB 1436 into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.11 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [20] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:12 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 or the...