Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 001 Havelock Village Limited v Waikato District Council [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...amended to refer to reverse sensitivity effects on industrial activities and that a more restrictive activity status is applied to dwellings and minor dwellings on General rural zoned land in proximity to the Hynds Factory Site; and (iv) the permitted activity standard for activities in the Heavy Industrial Zone is amended to provide for more than 250 vehicle movements per day (and with a larger proportion of the movements from heavy vehicles) from the Hynds Factory site. Cons...

2. LCRO 35/2017 QK v JF and EG (29 May 2019) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...LJ in Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Assn Ltd: In giving its reasons for judgment [a Court] is not composing a general lecture upon a legal topic: it is setting out as succinctly as the time available for preparation permits, those propositions of law which it considers are correct, and which are essential steps in the decision it has reached in the particular case. It is not obliged to state an answer to the arguments against the propositions of law which...

3. [2018] NZSAAA 2 (31 July 2018) [pdf, 422 KB]

   ...full-time course the allowance “must be 4 suspended” whether or not it is, in a broader sense, fair or equitable to do so. The Regulations, in other words, do not provide the chief executive with anything approaching a general discretion, permitting continuation of an allowance in such cases only in the very narrow circumstance of the failure being due to “reasons beyond the recipient’s control”. [13] Whether or not a student has passed more than half a full-time cou...

4. Wanoa v Wanoa - Succession to Rawiri Wanoa [2023] Chief Judge's MB 186 (2023 CJ 186) [pdf, 528 KB]

   ...in Rawiri’s Māori freehold lands under both s 108(2)(c) and (e) of the Act (as it stood in 2015). While Michelle states that she does whakapapa back to Rawiri’s hapū, as a recognised whāngai under s 115, she falls within the scope of the permitted class of beneficiaries to whom an interest in Māori land can be devised. Therefore, proof of whakapapa connections in not needed in order for the Court to find her entitled to these interests. The respondents note that Christophe...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 043 Barclay Management (2013) Ltd v City Rail Link Limited [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...detailed design. The Court observed that some tolerance should be allowed, and it is appropriate for there to be inbuilt flexibility to accommodate detailed design requirements.25 [64] CRLL submits that the matters listed in s 176A that are permitted to be addressed later all have effects that are not necessarily anticipated at the notice of requirement stage. For example, the height or shape of a building may have different shading effects on adjoining owners; the likely finish...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 92 H v A Ltd [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...accordingly barred by s 179(5). 15 In Alim v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd Judge Travis declined to hear a challenge to an adjournment of proceedings by the Authority. 16 In Grant v Vice-Chancellor of the University of Otago Chief Judge Colgan permitted a challenge to an Authority determination which held that an extension period for a recommendation pursuant to s 173A of the Act had been validly granted in spite of consent not being personally obtained by the applicant. 1...

7. [2017] NZEnvC 116 The Architectural Centre v Wellington City Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...that have been identified as having no heritage value. Identified non-heritage buildings or structures will be controlled to ensure that any future modifications enhance the values of the heritage area but their demolition or relocation will be permitted. The Council's priority is to maintain the integrity of heritage areas by avoiding the loss of the features that comprise the heritage area. For this reason the demolition or removal of buildings or other features, is a Discret...

8. Whare v Trustees of Pukerewa A Trust - Pukerewa A (2015) 95 Waikato Maniapoto MB 105 (95 WMN 105) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...If a settlement had not been achieved this would have potentially opened the Trust up to unnecessary costs to force a resolution, either through arbitration or litigation. [34] Even so, it is arguable as to whether or not grounds existed to permit a valid termination of the lease. Indeed, Minarapa Whare rejected this entirely as a solution and stressed his desire for the lease to continue and that the issues between the parties should be resolved by negotiation. Ultimately, tha...

9. Wall v The Maori Land Court - Tauhara Middle 15 Trust and Tauhara Middle 4A2A Trust [2010] 2010 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2010 APPEAL 55) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...Appellate Court MB 67 nor the presence of representatives of absent persons entitled to vote. A proxy cannot vote on a show of hands unless the rules or articles, or relevant statute expressly provides otherwise. However, even when rules permit a proxy to vote on a show of hands, a member who holds a proxy for another member may exercise only one vote on a show of hands. This is on the same principle that the person exercising a vote on a show of hands must be personally pres...

10. LCRO 45 and 46/2014 PO v RQ and FE [pdf, 273 KB]

    ...had been “seriously misled” by L Ltd as the vendor of the backpacker’s business. (b) The business was non-compliant with Council regulations. Whereas Mr PO was informed that the premises could accommodate 42 beds, in fact only 32 were permitted. Mrs FE failed to advise Mr PO to ensure that the 42-bed assurance given by the vendor was included in the agreement, and also failed to advise him to seek information from the Council as to building use. (c) Alterations to the pr...