Search Results

1. Brown v Edmonds - Succession to Kuini Brown and Mate Ihipera Rewi Tamehana [2021] Chief Judge's MB 988 (2021 CJ 988) [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. Identification of evidence that may be of assistance in remedying the mistake or omission 7. The applicant has provided the following information in support of his application: (i) A copy of the Record of Appeal - A20190007456 (Appeal 2019/11) – Estate Mate Ihipera Rewi Tamehana also known as Maude Thompson. Background information regarding Appeal 2019/11 – Estate Mate Tamehana also known as Maude Thompson 8. Johnson Brown (father of th...

2. 2023-05-22-Form-33-James-McDonnell-Limited.pdf [pdf, 9.4 MB]

   ...“primary feature” which crosses Ō2NL. It also includes two cycleways as “secondary features” which cross Ō2NL. 10. The decision on Proposed Plan Change 4 was adopted by Council and publicly notified on 4 July 2022. There are three appeals on Proposed Plan Change 4 in the Environment Court. These appeals are relatively narrow in scope. None of the appeals oppose Plan Change 4 as a whole, or oppose the provision of any of the Structure Plan primary or secondary featu...

3. LCRO 173/2022 JV v QR (6 May 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...2006 (the Act). Section 138(1)(b) enables a Committee to take no further action if “the subject matter of the complaint is trivial”. Section 138(1)(f) enables it to do so if “there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, … that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise”. Application for review [21] In his application for review dated 4 November 2022, the applicant: (a) clarified that it was not his view that MV did not have me...

4. Evans v Accident Compensation Corporation (Mental Injury) [2025] NZACC 37 (4 March 2025) [pdf, 231 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2025] NZACC 037 ACAR 38/24 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN DANE EVANS Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 11 February 2025 Heard at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-a-Tara] Appearances: Appellant is self-represented, supported by Ms Meeneer Mr Hlavac for the resp...

5. [2024] NZREADT 35 – CAC 2108 v Barfoot Thompson (20 September 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...actual loss or harm resulted from the agency’s conduct, and in Barfoot the purchasers were able to cancel the agreement for sale and purchase. [41] Mr McMullan referred to the penalties in both these cases. In Barfoot, the Tribunal on an appeal from the Committee, substituted the Committee’s penalty of $4,000 for one of $3,000, taking into account that the agent was entitled to credit for his lack of previous disciplinary charges. In Kek, the Tribunal also on appeal from the...

6. Heitia v Downs - Succession to Te Wetini Ngatai [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1 (2025 CJ 1) [pdf, 364 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.21 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) of the Act falls into two parts:22 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 c...

7. [2025] NZEmpC 163 Singh v Chand [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...An exacerbating feature is that the compliance orders were for salary and holiday payment, which are minimum entitlements. No explanation or excuses have been advanced by Mr Chand for the failure to pay the amounts ordered. [26] The Court of Appeal in Peter Reynolds Mechanical Ltd v Denyer, identified the primary purpose of s 140(6) as being to secure compliance.10 The Court further noted that the section must be intended to enable the Court to impose some form of sanction for...

8. [2025] NZEmpC 198 Rural Practice Ltd and Abdul Jabbar v A Labour Inspector [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...here, where recusal does not appear to have been considered. [11] The plaintiffs’ acceptance that a decision on recusal was unable to be challenged reflected the Employment Court’s findings in Bowen v National Bank Ltd.7 The Court of Appeal recently declined an application for leave to appeal that judgment.8 It was not persuaded that the argument that a recusal decision is jurisdictional and not procedural for the purposes of s 179(5) was sufficiently strong to warrant a...

9. [2024] NZEnvC 176 Waimarino Queenstown Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 942 KB]

   ...GROUP LTD v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL – INTERIM DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 176 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN WAIMARINO QUEENSTOWN LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO) B PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED (ENV-2023-CHC-1) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge P A Steven Environmen...

10. ENV-2016-AKL-000TBA Waste Management NZ Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

    Notice of appeal by Waste Management NZ Limited against decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Dated: 16 September 2016 REFERENCE: Paula Brosnahan (paula.brosnahan@chapmantripp.com) Jill Gregory (jill.gregory@chapmantripp.com) In the Environment Court of New Zealand at Auckland ENV-2016-AKL- in the matter of: the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 and:...