Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 030 Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...Policy 4.1.2, as follows: [RPS] Policy 4.1.2 – Enable sustainable use and development of natural resources in the Marlborough environment while managing any adverse environmental effects, through the use of: (a) allocation frameworks; (b) permitted activity rules and standards where no more than minor adverse effects are anticipated; and (c) (c) controlled activity rules and standards; and (c)(d) policies specific to various resources. 6. Add a new policy to the chapter,...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 101 Arkompat v Thai Chilli Co Ltd t/a Thai Chilli [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...other ground, that of temporary impecuniosity. He says he had other debts which, presumably, he felt obliged to either discharge or at least address before filing a challenge. The applicant, as someone in New Zealand on a temporary immigration permit, is not entitled to legal aid. There is, however, little if any detailed explanation of the sort that would be expected in an application such as this about the efforts made to obtain the court filing fee ($204.44) or why a waiver of...

3. McArthur Ridge – EiC – J Rasmussen (4 Feb 2021) [pdf, 11 MB]

   ...norman.elder@awslegal.co.nz Email: kgr@kelvinreid.co.nz IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE ENV-2020-CHC-127 UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER of the Water Permits Plan Change – Plan Change 7, being part of a proposal of national significance directed by the Minister for the Environment to be referred to the Environment Court under section 142(2)(b) of the RMA AND...

4. [2018] NZEnvC 109 V T Taueki v Horowhenua District Council [pdf, 796 KB]

   ...that did not involve any contravention of RMA or its associated planning instruments or provisions. [22] The District Council addressed the relevant provisions of both the Regional and District Plans. It submitted that the works would comply with permitted activity standards under both Plans. [23] Ms Johnston who represented the Regional Council confirmed that the works as proposed were a permitted activity under the Regional Plan. [24] Mr Randal advised that the relevant provisio...

5. McConnor v New Zealand Law Society [2024] NZLCDT 13 (16 May 2024) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...application. He suggests the assessments of his referees should be valorised because they are untainted by knowledge of his professional blemishes. In oral evidence he likened his position to that of a defendant in a criminal trial where the jury is not permitted to know of past convictions. The simile is inept. Although we are not in a criminal-related exercise, to answer Mr McConnor’s allusion in like terms, our task is more akin to the deliberations of the Parole Board deci...

6. Sufi v Department of Labour [2012] NZHRRT 6 [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...that the appeal is now determined on the papers. The plaintiff’s immigration history [12] According to the affidavit by Ms Willson, the plaintiff first arrived in New Zealand from Pakistan on 30 March 1999. On arrival he was granted a student permit. Thereafter he was granted a number of further temporary permits in the period between 5 July 1999 and 21 May 2003. An application for residence was declined on 17 September 2003. His last permit expired on 21 November 2003. [13] On...

7. [2017] NZEnvC 170 Auckland Council v Frogley [pdf, 359 KB]

   ...Valley Road, Waimauku being Lot 2 on Deposited Plan 311913 (title identifier NA 112B/491) (the property); b. Bringing any fill materials to the property until such time as all relevant resource consents are obtained; c. Undertaking any non-permitted land disturbance activities (such as earthworks) on the property; and d. Using the property as a depot or for any industrial or commercial activity or for any other activity for which resource consent is required unless and until s...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 4 of the New Zealand Law Society v Thoman [2011] NZLCDT 8 [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...to do. P [Heyns: paras 26 – 31, pp 16 – 17 and 70 – 96] 2.10 In August 2009, Ms P paid the practitioner $700. The practitioner was to apply on Ms P’s behalf for residency. At that point she was in New Zealand on the basis of a work permit which was due to expire in September 2009. In anticipation of that permit expiring, the practitioner was also retained by Ms P to apply for a second work permit. Ms P provided the practitioner with her passport. 2.11 The practitione...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 009 Hankinson v Central Otago District Council [pdf, 849 KB]

   ...fencing around the perimeter of the property is to be maintained, and all practical steps taken to control rabbits and other invasive plant and animal species. 11. Boundary fencing is restricted to post and wire and/or post and rail, with solid fencing permitted only where it is located within 20m of a dwelling. iii. The landscaping approved under Condition 3(c) of resource consent RC210313 is to be irrigated for a minimum period of three years and is to be maintained in perpetuity. Should an...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 224 Kongbang v Lotus Touch Ltd [pdf, 192 KB]

    ...Kongbang v Lotus Touch Ltd [2023] NZERA 727 (Member Gane). Kongbang various sums.2 However, it determined that the second defendant, Craig Johnson, was not involved in Lotus Touch’s breaches and that, as a result, Ms Kongbang was not permitted to recover sums from him.3 [3] In her statement of claim, Ms Kongbang seeks an order, pursuant to s 142W of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), that Mr Johnson was involved in breaches of employment standards. She also se...