Search Results

1. X Ltd v II [2021] NZDT 1539 (14 May 2021) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...24 July 2020 but that breakdown obviously was not provided before the work commenced. I find that if it had been critical to II and BI to have a breakdown of the Quote before work commenced, they should have insisted on that being provided before permitting any work to be carried out. II and BI considered the amount charged by XL to be “inflated”. I find that they have not established that to be the case by providing independent evidence to that effect. [11] I find that section 31...

2. [2023] NZEnvC 185 Regina Properties Limited v New Plymouth District Council [pdf, 392 KB]

   ...have not been confirmed but neutral colours are indicated I was advised that proposal proposes a maximum building height of 15.4 metres above existing ground level within Lot 1 DP 19148 and therefore a maximum infringement of 5.4 metres above the permitted 10 metre height limit for the zone. However, and as the site is not uniform, differing height infringements occur at various parts of the site. The existing consented GQ building is approximately 1.7 metres higher than the 10-metre he...

3. Air New Zealand Ltd v Lavender (Work Related Gradual Process Injury) [2024] NZACC 26 [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...[21] In Woolyarns,3 Ongley DCJ stated: [27] ... In an attempt to articulate the purpose of prescribing the boundaries of work-related cover, my view is that the extension beyond actual work activity reaches places where the employee is required or permitted to be because of the fact of or the nature of the employment … 1 Weal v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZHC 2612. 2 M v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACC 286. 3 Woolyarns v Accident Compensation Corp...

4. Amended affirmation of Mr Gary Taylor 2 December 2016 [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...bed, and north ofthe Tekapo River. The area for whkh this Certificate of Compliance is sought is all of that landshovv::n on the .Plan attached (Ap.pendix A). 3.0 PROFOSEDACTIVITY Simons Pass StationLimited proposes to undertake the following permitted activity: • pastoralintensificanon (Rrue7.15.1.1) on the land shown on the plan contained as AppenrltxA. Pastoral intensHi€'auon involving subdivisional fencing and oversowing and toprlressingWilI be undertaken over the e...

5. Lohr v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZHRRT 31 [pdf, 306 KB]

   ...40(1) time limit. The requested information was subsequently provided on 8 May 2014 except for two categories of information: [6.1] The entire investigation file. ACC justified the withholding of this information under s 27(1)(c) of the Act which permits an agency to refuse disclosure of information requested under Principle 6 if the disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences,...

6. [2024] NZEnvC 141 Van Den Brink Group v Waikato District Council [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...and Waipa River) in the Commercial zone (COMZ). Background [2] The original submission by the Appellant opposed COMZ-S61 relating to building setbacks from other zone boundaries. The equivalent notified rule provided that a building is a permitted activity if it is setback at least 7.5m from rear and side boundaries in the identified zones. The Appellant’s submission sought to reduce the setback to 3m. [3] Council submitted on a related rule, being COMZ-S72 which relates to...

7. [2006] NZEmpC AC 40/06 Saipe v Waitakere Enterprise Trust Board [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...defendant is reluctant to escalate the matter beyond the narrower issues the plaintiff, Mr Saipe, has notified. He added the reservation, however, that if the outcome of the present consideration by the Court is such that the defendant would not be permitted to lead evidence on the matters raised in the amended statement of defence, then the defendant might be left with no alternative but to seek leave to file a cross-notice raising a challenge de novo. For the reasons I am shortl...

8. Holmes v Commissioner of Police [2012] NZHRRT 17 [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...disclosure of the information would be likely— (a) ... (b) ... (c) to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial; (d) … [18] As can be seen, s 27(1) permits an agency to refuse to disclose information if disclosure is “likely” to have any of the listed consequences. The standard of proof is not the balance of probabilities ie “more likely than not”. In this context “likel...

9. [2010] NZEmpC 10 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...submitted that, to use the words of Chief Justice Roberts in a different context: “enough is enough”. 13 [41] Mr Quigg submitted that the current fraud proceedings require the plaintiff to put forward her evidence in support and not to be permitted to fish for further evidence to support those allegations. He submitted that neither this proceeding nor the substantive proceedings should be delayed any further. The plaintiff’s supplementary submissions [42] Mr Moodie com...

10. [2018] NZEnvC 116 Kumeu Property Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 8 MB]

    ...waive the requirement to provide bicycle parks to be provided pursuant to Rule E27.6.2.5 restricted discretionary activity. Taking, using, damming and diversion of water and drilling (bore water consent) (s14)­ REG- REG-68002 and 68003 1. Bore Permit - for any new bores for purposes not otherwise specified pursuant to Rule E7.4.1 (A41) - restricted discretionary activity. 2. Water Take - 70m3 per day and 23,320m3 per year of groundwater take from the Kumeu East Waitemata Sandstone...