Search Results

1. Aylesbury v Milton LCRO 61 / 2009 (31 July 2009) [pdf, 36 KB]

   ...and was waived. It is also relevant that r 8.4(g) of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care for lawyers contemplate that a lawyer may disclose otherwise confidential information when answering a complaint against him or her. Similarly r 8.4(g) permits disclosure with the consent of the client. There was no duty of confidence owed by Milton Law to Mr Aylesbury and as such the disclosure of information to the Standards Committee in relation to the Bay of Islands property was not in b...

2. Nuku v Clarke - Poukawa 13B Ahu Whenua Trust (2007) 193 Napier MB 19 (193 NA 19) [pdf, 428 KB]

   ...beneficiaries. Simply put, bad decisions by the trustees in respect to the use of trust property have resulted in the beneficiaries suffering. Payments to Kalmranaki Marae [31] The issue to be discussed in this section is whether the trust order permits large-scale expenditure on Kahuranaki Marae. [32] The facts indicate that the trust has entered an interest-bearing loan of $50,000 with Brownriggs Agriculture, and that this money is earmarked to be spent on Kahuranaki Marae. At t...

3. Re Apostolakis (Rejection of Statement of Claim) [2016] NZHRRT 35 [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...Commission has no jurisdiction over such complaints, falling as they do under the Privacy Act. Any complaint under that Act must be received, investigated and dealt with within the four corners of that statute. [17] In addition the Privacy Act permits proceedings before the Tribunal only in the limited circumstances allowed by s 83. That is, the aggrieved individual must first lodge a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner who, in turn, must follow the Part 8 provisions relating to...

4. BORA Financial Advisers Bill [pdf, 375 KB]

   ...other disclosure order; or o 7 days before the Commission makes the order, in the case of any other prohibition or corrective order. 70. Clause 72 authorises the Commission to make the orders set out in subclause (3) more urgently than clause 71 permits – therefore with less than 24 hours’ notice – if it thinks that this is necessary or desirable in the public interest. 71. Under clause 71(1)(c) and (d) of the Bill, the Commission must give each person to whom the notice of the...

5. [2018] NZEnvC 038 Adams v Auckland Council [pdf, 534 KB]

   ...gardens. The zone enables intensification, while retaining a suburban built character. Development within the zone will generally be two storey detached and attached housing in a variety of types and sizes to provide housing choice. The height of permitted buildings is the main difference between this zone and the Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone which generally provides for three storey predominately attached dwellings. Up to three twa dwellings are permitted as of right subject...

6. [2023] NZEnvC 226 Scaife v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...provided for in the RLZ, this is on a more qualified basis than in the RVZ. For example, visitor accommodation (including the construction or use of buildings) is classed as a discretionary activity (r 22.4.10) (whereas the RVZ classes it as a permitted activity). The qualified provision for visitor accommodation in the RLZ is also reflected in rules on matters of control and discretion and associated standards and in a lack of any signal that consent applications for such activit...

7. Federated Farmers of New Zealand.pdf [pdf, 395 KB]

   ...Council will in conjunction with certified sector schemes where available: Support Federated Farmers encourages Waikato Regional Council to work in conjunction with certified sector schemes where this is possible. Rules Rule 3.11.4.2 Interim Permitted Activity – Farming prior to obtaining consent Amended to align with the amendments proposed to other rules. Amend Rule 3.11.4.2 as follows: Except as permitted by Rule 3.11.4.1 or 3.11.4.3, or as regulated by Rule 3.11.4.9...

8. [2017] NZEnvC 188 Vipassana Foundation Charitable Trust v OBrien Pichler [pdf, 487 KB]

   ...abatement notices had been served on the second or third respondents. I am not sure how substantial a difference that is. The first respondents, as the owners and occupiers of the site, are in control of who may come onto the site. If they were to permit the second or third respondents to undertake earthworks in breach of the abatement notice that has been served on them, then that permission would likely constitute an offence under section 338(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, any earth...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 76 George v Auckland City Council and vice versa [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...v Jesudhass. 4 The Court of Appeal (Wilson J) wrote as follows: [41] We now return to the question of public policy considerations. As the Employment Court stated, it may be that such considerations require s 148 be interpreted so as to permit evidence of serious criminal conduct during a mediation to be called, including evidence from the mediator. [42] An example given by Sinclair J in Milner v Police (1987) 2 FRNZ 693; (1987) 4 NZFLR 424 (an authority to which Mr Corkil...

10. Apostolakis v Public Trust (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 205 KB]

    ...litigants such as Ms Mackrell, and it was made by the Tribunal here. But lay litigants, like litigants who are professionally represented, are required to comply with the pleading rules and procedures of Tribunals and Courts. They are not to be permitted to file incomprehensive claims, because that only visits prejudice and injustice upon the respondent, not to mention enormous inconvenience to the Court or Tribunal. [22] A statement of claim drafted in compliance with these requireme...