Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 280 Horongarara Point Group v Waikato District Council [pdf, 735 KB]

   ...The effect of the mapping adopted in the decisions version of the PDP is that portions of the Properties fall within the High Risk coastal erosion area and are subject to rules NH-R36 to NH-R52. Within the mapped High Risk coastal erosion area, permitted activities include minor new structures (NH-R36 and NH-R37) and activities associated with maintenance or repair of existing protection structures, telecommunications and electricity (NH-R39 to NH-R42). New or upgraded hard protecti...

2. [2024] NZEnvC 287 Port Taranaki Limited v New Plymouth District Council [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...Activities PREC12-R17 Building activities (1) Port Operational Activity status: PER Where: Activity status where compliance not achieved: RDIS Areas A, B & C Port Industry Area 1. the building activities are associated with permitted land use activities for the relevant sub-precinct; and 2. all relevant PREC12 - Port Precinct Effects Standards are complied with. Matters over which discretion is restricted: 1. The extent to which the construction, alteration,...

3. Tairua v Aati - Estate of Mere Hare Kerepeti [2020] Maori Appellate Court MB 224 (2020 Appeal 224) [pdf, 308 KB]

   ...that there can be no presumption that the evidence should be believed as the evidence is in the nature of an assertion of personal recollection and speculation. Finally, Mr Watson submitted that there were not any exceptional circumstances to permit the filing of further evidence as per Faulkner v Hoete.13 12 Dragicevich v Martinovich (1969) NZLR 306 (CA). 13 Faulkner v Hoete - Motiti North C No 1 [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 1...

4. NZLS 19 Mar 2013 Giving Evidence [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...compelled to answer questions that would incriminate you. If you feel that giving evidence might incriminate you, talk to a lawyer about that. Usually, a witness gives evidence orally in a courtroom. However, there are other ways in which the judge can permit a witness to give evidence, including: ·· giving evidence while screened from the defendant; ·· giving evidence-in-chief by video record; ·· giving evidence by closed circuit television from another room in the courthouse;...

5. Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – summary record 15th-17th reports (continued) [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...measures listed in paragraph 78 of the report, aimed at reducing the effects of the family violence to which Maori women were exposed. CERD/C/SR.1821 page 10 52. Referring to paragraph 136 of the report, he asked whether migrants holding work permits of less than two years and aliens in an irregular situation had access to health care and whether their children had access to education in the same way as people on work permits allowing a stay of two years or more, refugees and asylum...

6. Hawke v ACC [2013] NZACA 5 [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...12 17 to the District Court for determination; if not, it would remain in the Authority and directions would be made for bringing the substantive appeal to a hearing. Existing appeals were to be either dealt with on the papers if time permitted, or as a preliminary matter at the substantive hearing. No appeal against the decision was contemplated when the wording of the practice note was discussed and agreed to. [58] I have not seen the Registry letters to counsel in R...

7. [2017] NZEnvC 037 Wellington Fish Game Council v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [pdf, 3.7 MB]

   ...to the matters set out in s104, but they must not necessarily be accepted. See eg: Foodstuffs (South Island) Ltd v Christchurch CC [1999] NZRMA 482 (HC). [15] A further restriction of the decision-making power exists in the case of discharge permits (a class of resource consent) required to authorise an activity that would otherwise contravene s15 (except in the case of a truly exceptional, or temporary, or other work required for maintenance, which do not apply here). Section 107...

8. Rafiq v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2012] NZHRRT 12 [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...inquiry by the Registrar, Mr Rafiq confirmed that he had not travelled to Wellington, would not be attending any of the hearings and would be relying on his “paper submissions”. The hearing accordingly proceeded in the absence of Mr Rafiq as permitted by Regulation 19(3) of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002. The Commissioner’s only witness, Mr Andrew Rodger, Manager, Relationship Management Group, gave oral evidence in accordance with his brief of evidence and answ...

9. Austin v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 180 [pdf, 634 KB]

   ...burden of proof; • It considered the history of the claim in the High Court litigation which was not a relevant factor, and which provided an appearance of bias or predetermination; and did not consider how the Accident Compensation Act permitted some recovery of the payments; • It relied upon the opinions of medical practitioners, or scientists, without identifying: [1] Whether they were “experts” in terms of the Evidence Act 2006; [2] Whether the evidence shoul...

10. LCRO 57/2021 FC v HS, FM and QP (8 September 2023) [pdf, 224 KB]

    ...my daughter and son and if it is hard I will ask you. [100] None of this material supports Ms FC’s assertions about being denied her interpreter of choice. Ms FC has neither adduced any evidence of her own of [Law firm A] being reluctant to permit her to use her own interpreter nor responded to the evidence adduced by the respondents supporting the general proposition that they translated what they were asked to translate when they were asked to translate it. [101] I find that Ms...