Search Results

1. [2024] NZIACDT 22 – QN v Nandan (29 August 2024) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...[22] Immigration NZ declined the residence visa for the complainant and her husband in a letter to Ms Nandan on 19 November 2018. It found that the complainant had provided false evidence. A character waiver had not been granted. [23] An appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) against the decline of residence was filed by Ms Nandan on behalf of the complainant on 4 January 2019. [24] The complainant asked Ms Nandan by text on 7 May 2019 for her visa status, as...

2. 2024-NZEnvC-047-Waste-Management-NZ-Limited-v-Hauraki-District-Council.pdf [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 047 IN THE MATTER the Resource Management Act 1991 AND of an appeal under section 120 of the Act BETWEEN WASTE MANAGEMENT NZ LIMITED (ENV-2021-AKL-000137) Appellant AND HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondents AND MARK OFSOSKE TE KUPENGA O NGĀTI HAKO Section 274 Parties Court: Environment Judge D A...

3. [2024] NZEnvC 050 The Warehouse Limited v Auckland Transport [pdf, 16 MB]

   Eastern Busway Stage 2 Project IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 050 IN THE MATTER OF appeals under section 174 the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN THE WAREHOUSE LIMITED (ENV-2023-AKL-000195) GENERAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED (ENV-2023-AKL-000197) PAKURANGA PLAZA LIMITED (ENV-2023-AKL-000198) Appellants AND AUCKLAND TRANSPORT Respondent Court: Environment Judge J A Smith sitti...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 160 Mc Culloch & Ors v NZFS Council [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...exclusive jurisdiction, is higher than it was in the High Court for a stay of the proceeding there. It is certainly more than a mere assertion that there has been a strike and the proceedings relate to that. Even on a question of stay, the Court of Appeal noted in New Zealand Labourers Union v Fletcher Challenge Ltd: 2 … a defendant applying for a stay should usually be granted one if on the pleadings and any supporting evidence he satisfies the High Court Judge that it is rea...

5. EMPC Old dogs new tricks conference presentation [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...(s12) and the right of workplace access to employees by a bargaining representative (ss 13 and 14). Despite attempts from time to time by the Employment Court to do so (most of which were either negated or at least significantly restricted on appeal), 3 it was difficult to engraft onto a statutory obligation to recognise a bargaining agent, what we now know to be obligations of good faith bargaining. Some, but not much, judge-made law supporting good faith bargaining was developed...

6. [2012] NZEmpC 47 TLNZ Auckland Ltd and C3 Ltd v Maritime Union of NZ and Parsloe & Ors and Jennings & 21 ors [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...interim injunction but to all intents and purposes is really an application for final judgment, the plaintiff should demonstrate that it has a “meritorious substantive case.” 3 This is because the defendant will have little or no opportunity to appeal the decision if the injunction is granted and would be deprived of the opportunity of a full hearing to determine the matter on its merits. For these reasons, and taking into account the specialised role of this Court in dealing...

7. Olsen v Vercoe - Matata Parish Lot 6A (2015) 116 Waiariki MB 63 (116 WAR 63) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...Mr Olsen provided a schedule of numerous attendances and meetings that he and/or Mr Gardiner attended. The hours approximate to 128.5 hours but do not include time expended in relation to the injunction proceedings filed last year, the related appeal proceedings to the Environment Court, or the current removal application proceedings. The trustees say that the total time committed to the project could easily exceed 200 hours each. [16] The trustees advised that no payments have be...

8. [2014] NZEmpC 99 Robinson v Pacific Seals Ltd [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...a significant hazard the employer must take all practicable steps to eliminate, isolate or minimise it. 14 A significant hazard is defined as including “an actual or potential cause or source of serious harm”. 15 [26] As the Court of Appeal observed in Central Cranes Ltd v Department of Labour: 16 The Act adopts a preventative approach to maintaining and promoting health and safety in the workplace. Its principal object is to provide for the prevention of harm. To a...

9. Parohinog v Yellow Pages Group Ltd (Strike-Out Application No 2) [2015] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 91 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...

10. GA & BD v X SC LCRO 186/2013 (5 May 2014) [pdf, 154 KB]

    ...concerned. The scope of this review [45] The role of this Office, when considering a review of a decision to lay charges against a practitioner before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, was the subject of comment by the Court of Appeal in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society, where the Court held that there was no threshold test to meet before matters could be referred to the LCDT.16 [46] Part of the Court’s reasoning was that the threshold test which previously exis...