Search Results

1. [2022] NZEmpC 77 Courage v Attorney-General [pdf, 422 KB]

   ...dangerous and yeah it needs – I think the big point around this is that there – with this environment these people have got rights and they need protecting and that’s what hasn’t happened and that’s what this is all about. It’s providing the protection to the individuals that they need because if every employer was good, if every employment situation was good, you wouldn’t need employment laws to protect employees and that’s why we’re here today. [69] As Peter Righteo...

2. [2023] NZEnvC 190 Donaldson v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 913 KB]

   ...Shepherd EIC, at [2]. 36 Edwards EIC, at [2]. 28 was not made aware, when they purchased some six years ago, that there was any likelihood the Site would be developed there. Indeed, they purchased for the “high level of amenity value and the protection and security afforded by living within the Millbrook precinct”. He has similar concerns about Ishii Lane becoming a through lane taking significant extra traffic.37 [81] On behalf of the Millbrook Residents Group, concern...

3. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 v Campion [2019] NZLCDT 20 [pdf, 582 KB]

   ...the solicitor of the estate is properly regarded as “work that is incidental” to the other established classes of legal work set out in s 6 of the Act.” [74] The LCRO noted (paragraph [29]) that one of the central purposes of the Act was to protect consumers of legal services and conveyancing services. As a result the LCRO considered that it was appropriate to interpret the Act in a way which was consistent with the protection of consumers of legal services. [75] The LCRO co...

4. LCRO 18/2021 MB v RP and ND (14 October 2022) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review on the basis of all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. 6 [31] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that nece...

5. Otago Standards Committee v Saunderson-Warner [2013] NZLCDT 15 [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...from the said Mr S were certain to generate more significant work and fees than any remaining work for Dr and Mrs H; 3 (e) The conduct set out in the preceding paragraphs was contrary to rule 4.2 of the Lawyers: Rules of Conduct and Client Care Rules. Charge 2 In the alternative to Charge 1, the Otago Lawyers Standards Committee charges Sarah Astrid Saunderson-Warner of Dunedin, Lawyer with misconduct under s.7(1)(a)(i) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (“the Act”...

6. [2021] NZEnvC 189 Bridesdale Farm Developments Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.6 MB]

   ...QLDC's planning witness, Mr Langman. However, counsel's closing submissions sought further changes to this modified relief. [19] One set of changes was proposed in response to concerns raised by Mr Langman that the LDSR zone is not designed to protect ONF /L landscape values (by contrast to the Rural zone). On that matter, BFDL's planning witness, Mr Jeffrey Brown, responded by proposing: 12 II 12 (a) a new Pol 7.2.1.7 as follows: Ensure that development and associated...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 091 Otago Regional Council [pdf, 528 KB]

   ...Rūnaka ki Puketeraki, Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Hokonui Rūnanga (Kāi Tahu ki Otago) Support in part Reject Issue 7.2.2 10031 10025 10031.07 10025.08 Director-General of Conservation Tumuaki Ahurei Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc Support Support Retain Issue 7.2.2 as notified. Accept in part FS103 Otago Fish & Game Council and Central South Island Fish & Game Council Support Accept in part Issue 7.2.3 10019...

8. [2022] NZEnvC 91 Otago Regional Council - Chapter 7 (Landfills) [pdf, 600 KB]

   ...Rūnaka ki Puketeraki, Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Hokonui Rūnanga (Kāi Tahu ki Otago) Support in part Reject Issue 7.2.2 10031 10025 10031.07 10025.08 Director-General of Conservation Tumuaki Ahurei Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc Support Support Retain Issue 7.2.2 as notified. Accept in part FS103 Otago Fish & Game Council and Central South Island Fish & Game Council Support Accept in part Issue 7.2.3 10019...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 174 Barbican Securities Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...Court adopts that finding. NPS-HPL [52] As previously outlined, the site is predominantly comprised of LUC 2 and 3 soils which fall within the definition of highly productive land in the NPS-HPL. [53] The NPS-HPL has the sole objective of protecting highly productive land for use in land-based primary production, both now and for future generations (Objective 2.1). Relevant to this case, it seeks to meet this objective by avoiding the subdivision of highly productive land (exc...

10. Interim regulatory impact statement - jury trial timeliness [pdf, 2.3 MB]

    ...alleged offending, where the consequences of the offending are more serious, including the potential impact on the defendant if convicted. 30. This aims to strike a better balance between maintaining a right to a jury trial and the constitutional protections that come with it, and the extra time and resource required to conduct those proceedings for the courts, prosecutors, lawyers and the public. To improve court performance, efficiency and access to justice 31. Timely access to...