Search Results

1. 2021-07-02 Strath Clyde Water Ltd, McArthur Ridge Vineyard Ltd and Mount Dunstan Estates Ltd - Closing Submissions [pdf, 722 KB]

   ...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...

2. [2018] NZLCDT 24 Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Ellis [pdf, 558 KB]

   ...30 August 2010 in a sum exceeding the fee invoice, in the manner described in Particular 4. (c) Charged Ms B a fee in the amount of $1,595.63 including GST and disbursements by invoice dated 9 March 2016, in the absence of a contract of retainer permitting him to charge a fee and without having undertaken any authorised legal work; and (d) Deducted that fee from Ms B’s funds then in his trust account; without authority and in the absence of a contract of retainer, and contrary to...

3. BB v WT & Ors LCRO 55/2015 (9 October 2015) [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...initially sought to challenge an aspect of a Standards Committee decision, not by exercising the statutory power of review, but by lodging a separate complaint against the Standards Committee members who delivered the decision. [14] That approach, if permitted, would have serious consequences for the disciplinary process, and potentially provide an insurmountable obstacle to the fundamental objective of ensuring that complaints are dealt with expeditiously. [15] Mr BB’s applicat...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 16 Nathan v Broadspectrum (New Zealand) Ltd [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...call”, but was something Mr Nathan would need to take up with James Irvine (Mr Whittington’s manager). [16] Mr Nathan immediately applied to the Court for a further fine to be imposed. He invited the Court to impose the maximum fine of $40,000 permitted by s 140 of the Act.17 Broadspectrum opposed the application maintaining it had complied and that the circumstances do not warrant a fine. As an alternative it said any fine should be modest.

5. [2018] NZEmpC 81 Wood v NZ Cupolex Ltd [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...in cl 14 of sch 3 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. [37] The parties are to calculate the correct amounts. If that has not occurred within 21 days, I reserve leave to Mr Wood to return to Court providing the information which will permit the necessary calculation to be made. [38] The findings of the Authority relating to the tenure bonus are set aside. [39] Costs are sought. I am not persuaded that NZCL should pay the costs of the challenge. It appears the Authorit...

6. EI v SB & HS [2015] NZDT 1437 (28 October 2015) [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...from the commencement of the liquidation of a company,— (a) The liquidator has custody and control of the company's assets: (b) The directors remain in office but cease to have powers, functions, or duties other than those required or permitted to be exercised by this Part of this Act: (c) Unless the liquidator agrees or the Court orders otherwise, a person must not— (i) Commence or continue legal proceedings against the company or in relation to its property; or (ii) Ex...

7. LCRO 100/2020 FT v D and O CM (9 June 2020) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...36/2009 (27 March 2009), LCRO 230-2017 (15 December 2017). 4 Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006, sch 2, cl 1. 3 [14] That inquiry is necessary in order to establish whether the discretion allowed under sch 2 of the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 which permits courts or tribunals to extend the timeframe for filing applications, ameliorates the strict approach Review Officers have historically adopted when considering review applications that have been filed out of time. [15] The fun...

8. [2016] NZSSAA 64 (30 June 2016) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...good faith; (d) the beneficiary changed his position believing he was entitled to receive the money and would not have to repay it; and (e) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial circumstances, to permit recovery. [25] Pursuant to s 86(9B) of the Act, the term “error” includes: (a) the provision of incorrect information by an officer of the Ministry; (b) an erroneous act or omission occurring during an investigation of benefit en...

9. TT Ltd v TG Trust [2022] NZDT 136 (17 August 2022) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...consent was available and had been approved. In this regard, I note that the quote dated 12 April 2017 that the Applicant provided to the Respondent noted that it was subject to the Applicant’s terms of trade which included that “Consents and permits are the responsibility of the client/main contractor. A copy of the approved consent is required before we can begin works.” (page 1 of the quote). However, the Applicant completed the works without obtaining a copy of the relevant appro...

10. [2022] NZEnvC 076 Pipers Limited Partnership v Auckland Council [pdf, 537 KB]

    ...plan General rules The General Rules in Chapter 3 apply across the entire Plan, except for the RPS and where a rule specifically provides otherwise (Rule C1.1(1)). Rule C1.7(1) states that an activity that is not specifically classed as a permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary, non-complying or prohibited activity is a discretionary activity unless otherwise specified. Further, Rule C1.10(1) states that each activity listed in an activity table must “...