Search Results

1. Chee v Stareast Investment Ltd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 33 [pdf, 298 KB]

   ................................................................................. 23 WHAT IS THE REMEDIAL WORK REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE DEFECTS? .................................................................................................. 23 CAN DIRECTORS OF COMPANIES INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO SUBSEQUENT OWNERS? .................................... 25 RESPONSIBILITY OF MR HUNG ............................................................... 26 RESPONSIBILITY OF...

2. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust (Application for Interim Non-Publication Orders) [2013] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...Commissioner of Police in relation to the Privacy Act complaint made against the Commissioner. [21] Mr Judd submits that the conclusions reached by the Privacy Commissioner after a detailed investigation of the facts and after hearing the SSGT represent a careful and responsible analysis of the facts and that for the purpose of the interim order application those conclusions establish, at the very least, a strong arguable case that there has been a breach of Principles 6, 8 and 11 as all...

3. Kennedy v Scanner Investments Ltd [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...detailed in the estimates by Octa Associates (submitted as an appendix to Mr O’Connor’s report). 4.3 The claims against Scanner are in tort and based on allegations of negligence. The Owners say that Scanner owed them a non-delegable duty of care to ensure that all building work was carried out in compliance with the building regulations. They claim that it breached that duty by failing to carry out, or have carried out, the building work in a compliant manner. 4.4 The...

4. Aldridge & Ors as Trustees of the SL & KM Aldridge Family Trust v Boe [2012] NZWHT Auckland 27 [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...judgment, stated that I did not mention Mr Swarts return to the home (then occupied by the Boes) in 1999 to carry out the job of assisting with the erection of the pergola beams. [17] Mr Wright contends that: (i) Mr Swart had a general duty of care to remedy his faulty building work when coming back onto the building site to work on the pergola and (ii) his affixing of the pergola beams was defective and causative of damage. Mr Wright’s submission places reliance on John...

5. [2021] NZEnvC 034 Coneburn Preserve Holdings Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...drafting of policy 41.2.1.22; (c) Issue 3: the appropriateness of the additional homesites included in the Ch 41 structure plan; ( d) Issue 4: the Village Activity Area; and (e) Issue 5: the approach to the Peninsula Hill ONL/Peninsula Hill Landscape Protection Area overlay. [9] This decision is confined to Issues 2 and 3.9 [1 OJ As for the remaining issues: 8 9 10 (a) the appeal point for Issue 1 was withdrawn by Jacks Point; (b) Issue 4 remains live but is subject to the prop...

6. [2020] NZIACDT 42 - NMS v Mercado (1 October 2020) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...to the complainant’s employment agreement, so that all her work was as a PA at DEFL. [33] On 29 June 2018, Mr Mercado advised the complainant that the visa officer may have erred in declining the visa. He said an appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) could be prepared. [34] An appeal to the IPT was filed on 2 July 2018. [35] The IPT issued a decision on 14 February 2019 declining the appeal. It was found that the complainant had not complied with the visa con...

7. [2024] NZEnvC 103 Turoa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 698 KB]

   ...principles, and the parties have collectively agreed to implement the consent consistent with those principles. The principles are as follows: (a) Mana whakahaere: the power, authority, and obligations of tangata whenua to make decisions that maintain, protect, and sustain the health and well-being of, and their relationship with, freshwater (b) Kaitiakitanga: the obligation of tangata whenua to preserve, restore, enhance, and sustainably use freshwater for the benefit of present and...

8. AQ v UD LCRO 188/2013 (10 August 2013) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...further action in relation to her complaint against Mr UD. Mr UD was counsel for Mrs AQ in a High Court appeal hearing. Background [2] Mrs AQ and Mr B are the parents of C. They were involved in Family Court proceedings in relation to C’s care. The pivotal issue was whether or not Mr B had sexually abused his daughter or whether for any other reason he was not a suitable person to have the unsupervised care of his daughter during weekends. The Family Court found that M...

9. Livingstone v Animal Health Board — Lake Rotoaira Forest Lands (2009) 245 Aotea MB 124 (245 AOT 124) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...aerial drop of the poison known as 1080 over various blocks of Māori freehold land in which he claims an interest as an owner. Mr Livingstone says that the use of 1080 will have a devastating effect on wildlife including important national and protected species. He further claims that the Animal Health Board and associated authorities have failed to notify, provide opportunity for discussion and secure the support of the trustees and owners of the affected lands. Mr Livingstone th...

10. CAC20005 v Morton-Jones [2015] NZREADT 71 [pdf, 141 KB]

    ...prosecution having encapsulated submissions under the above heading which are substantially as follows. [8] It is well established that penalty decisions of professional disciplinary tribunals should emphasise the maintenance of high standards and the protection of the public through specific and general deterrence. While this may result in orders having a punitive effect, this is not their purpose; Z v CAC [2009] 1 NZLR 1; CAC v Walker [2011] NZREADT 4. Section 110(2) of the Act set...