Search Results

1. P and R v EQC and MIS [2024] CEIT-2023-0014 [pdf, 331 KB]

   ...after 1 January 2011. 10) The parties’ submissions pointed out that the Tribunal’s decisions do not create precedent in a stare decisis sense. For such precedent to be created from a decision of this Tribunal, that decision would need to be appealed and the treatment of the law affirmed on appeal, an uncertain and drawn-out process. It was the view of the parties that the referral process under s53 would provide a swifter means to resolve the issue. The issues and questions...

2. [2010] NZEmpC 55 Rooney Earthmoving Ltd v McTague & Ors [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...exceptions) Electrical etc IUOW v Remtron Lighting Ltd (in rec) [1990] 1 NZILR 583; (1990) 3 NZERLC 98,141, this Court followed the judgment in Marr v Arabco Traders Ltd (No 8) unreported, Tompkins J, 12 March 1987, HC Auckland A1195/77 affirmed on appeal in Elders Pastoral Ltd v Marr (1987) 2 PRNZ 383 (CA). Leave to amend proceedings at a late stage of them is a discretionary decision based on whether such an amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties...

3. NOP TUV v MBIE [2014] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...articulated in the statement of claim [49] By statement of claim received by the Tribunals Unit on 6 August 2008 the plaintiffs alleged that INZ had violated Principle 8 in the following respects: 4. The defendant was required under its own policy and appeal precedents: a) to put the immigration implications of any convictions directly, unambiguously and in writing to the plaintiffs b) to ensure that the plaintiffs had direct and timely input into any special directions or character...

4. [2020] NZEmpC 206 Awesome Art Ltd v Milne [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...mentioned that a challenge had to be filed within 28 days. 9 Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801 at [36]–[37]; The Court held that where a litigant takes steps to exercise the right of appeal within the required timeframe (including advising the other party), but misses the specified time limit by a day or so as a result of an error or miscalculation and applies for an extension of time promptly of learning of that error...

5. CurrentWaterApps 15 December 2020 [xls, 96 KB]

   ...Permit Not Yet Commenced 14 Aug 2019 2 Nov 2020 30 Dec 2035 15 WR848CL 14 Aug 2019 Yes RM19.305 Received Resource Consent Application 4 Sep 2019 RM19.305.01 Surface Water Take Permit Received 2 Sep 2019 2009.220.V1 2 Sep 2019 No RM19.312 Under Appeal Resource Consent Application 24 Oct 2019 RM19.312.01 Surface Water Take Permit Received 17 Mar 2020 30 Dec 2035 16 Albert Burn (1) 2002.348.V1 26 Aug 2020 Yes RM19.312 Under Appeal Resource Consent Application 24 Oct 2019 RM19.312.01 Su...

6. Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 38 [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...further or additional evidence on defects and damage. These issues have already been determined and a substantive decision issued. If Mr Holyoake disagreed with the decisions in that determination the appropriate step for him to take was to appeal that decision, as he has done. [13] We are still of that opinion. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to re-open the issues of damage and defects when a final decision on those issues has already been made. While Dr Spears...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 212 Go Bus Transport Ltd v Hellyer interlocutory [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...to the claim for family passes, had not been considered. 5 2 At [52]. 3 At [57]-[58]. 4 At [59]. 5 At [67]. d) The Authority relied on the following dicta of the Court of Appeal in Andy Nathan v C3 Limited: 6 [35] … We also consider that in terms of s 103A a fair and reasonable employer could not justify dismissal if the decision made was discriminatory in terms of s 104. … [37] The specific pro...

8. [2023] NZEnvC 028 Lang v Buller District Council [pdf, 541 KB]

   LANG v BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL – CONSENT ORDER IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 28 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s 120 of the Act BETWEEN TIMOTHY DEIDRICK WILLIAM LANG, CHRISTINE ANNE LANG, TERRANCE SYDNEY GANE, SUZANNE THORA KEPPEL, LORREE ANNE WILSON, GEOFFREY GLYNN FORD NICHOLSON (ENV-2022-CHC-23) Appellants AND BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent...

9. LCRO 152/2015 FR v CB and WT (15 May 2017) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...breach the requirements of the Act. FR’s submissions [34] At the review hearing FR handed up two papers entitled “Matters arising from the records of hearing [date] by Deputy LCRO O W J Vaughan” and “Additional matters relating to the appeal hearing by Deputy LCRO O W J Vaughan 19/4/17”. [35] As indicated in the title given by FR to the first paper, he raises various matters dealt with in the decision of [date]. The matters addressed in that decision provide the start...

10. Deputy Registrar - Mohaka A4B (2021) 102 Tairawhiti MB 177 (102 TRW 177) [pdf, 268 KB]

    ...or persons (with the consent of that person or those persons) upon the terms of the trust, whether or not that person was previously a trustee. 102 Tairāwhiti MB 181 [18] The leading authority for the appointment of trustees is the Court of Appeal judgment Clarke v Karaitiana. In that decision, the Court underscored the necessity of considering a wide range of factors when making appointments. That included the views of the owners, which should carry considerable weight, bala...