Search Results

1. Franklin v CAC 20005 & Bailey [2013] NZREADT 77 [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...behalf of the particular interested party. [50] For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Put another way, we agree with the views and findings of the Committee. [51] Mr J E Bayley, counsel for the licensee, also noted that the Committee permitted publication of its decision but with names and identifying details omitted. He requests that leave be reserved for him to make submissions concerning publication of our decision. We reserve leave accordingly and, of course, any app...

2. [2023] NZEnvC 086 Bay of Islands Maritime Park Incorporated v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 4 MB]

   ...Tangaroa Protection Areas – manage adverse effects; (c) C.1.10 Te Hā o Tangaroa Protection Areas; (d) C.1.10.1 Temporary or permanent minor damage or destruction or removal of fish, aquatic life or seaweed in Te Hā o Tangaroa Protection Area – permitted activities; (e) C.1.10.2 Temporary or permanent damage or destruction or removal of fish, aquatic life or seaweed in a Te Hā o Tangaroa Protection Area – prohibited activities; (f) Maps – Te Hā o Tangaroa Protection...

3. Samuela v Accident Compensation Corporation (Prelimary jurisdiction issue) [2023] NZACC 162 [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...leave entitlements. [17] While the facts of Mr Folau’s case are different, the issue is the same. Both involve abatement of leave payments received by a claimant during their pre-incapacity employment. Further, Mr Folau’s employer was only permitted to abate his leave entitlement and compel Mr Folau to use the leave because of the Corporation’s interpretation of the abatement provisions. The Corporation gives the employer undue influence to decide whether leave entitlemen...

4. [2022] NZEnvC 090 Cable Bay Wines Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 397 KB]

   ...process has been extended and costly. (b) arguments advanced by Cable Bay were without substance. (c) there was an abuse of the Court's process when Cable Bay disregarded the Court's directions in the Second Interim Decision when they permitted a wedding ceremony to take place in an unauthorised area. ( d) the case for Cable Bay was poorly pleaded or presented with respect to the quality, clarity and comprehensiveness of the submissions, evidence and conditions as they w...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 63 Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie Ors [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...proceedings are in each court; 11 MacKay Refined Sugars (NZ) Ltd v NZ Sugar Co Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 476 (HC) at 482, (1997) 11 PRNZ 295 at 301. (i) whether the law should strive against permitting multiplicity of proceedings in relation to similar issues; and (j) generally balancing the advantages and disadvantages to each party. [31] Addressing what might be called these McKay Refined Sugars tests, I conclude as follows....

6. [2019] NZEnvC 151 The Otahuao Burial Ground Trust v Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga [pdf, 6.9 MB]

   ...construction fencing shall be established to avoid any impacts from construction works upon fish traps P0S/867 and P0S/988 outside the 11 disturbance footprint" . No works or machinery operations associated with the construction works shall be permitted beyond the temporary construction fencing without the prior written consent of the Regional Archaeologist HNZPT. Should machinery or materials associated with the works be stored, or vehicles associated with the works be parked, off-...

7. Quin v REAA & Knaptondocx [2012] NZREADT 13 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...neither relieved the licensee from the representations she made to the complainant, nor meant that the complaint must be considered under the 1976 Act. Decision of Committee on Orders Relief sought by Complainants [7] The complainants were permitted to file submissions on what, if any, order should be made and, if they sought relief under s.93(1)(f) of the 2008 Act, were required to specify the amount sought with reference to quotations and invoices. It needed to be established t...

8. Nee Harland v Prentice - Mana Ahuriri Incorporated Society (2017) 59 Takitimu MB 227 (59 TKT 227) [pdf, 348 KB]

   ...review or other civil proceedings in the High Court. So Mr Nee Harland’s arguments were squarely before me. [43] More importantly, in Henare v Māori Trustee - Parengarenga 3G it was confirmed that an application for rehearing will not be permitted merely for the purposes of repairing omissions in the presentation of an earlier case. 7 By this process it appears that Mr Nee Harland is, in effect, seeking to amend his original pleadings by resubmitting further material concern...

9. Proposed amended Auditing and Monitoring Policy [pdf, 811 KB]

   ...co-operate Cooperation with auditor To co-operate with the auditor, the provider must:  give the auditor access to all relevant documents  answer any questions fully, frankly, promptly, and in the form required by the auditor; and  permit, and if necessary assist, the auditor to make copies of documents. Reference: Section 92(1) Failure to co-operate with audit The table below outlines the process that takes place if a provider fails to co-operate with an auditor. St...

10. Aperahama v Anderson - Sections 57 58 70 72 and 100 of Ratana Pa (2022) 447 Aotea MB 93 (447 AOT 93) [pdf, 262 KB]

    ...most effectively in these contexts.17 It was further argued that this Court is a better alternative to the High Court, which does not necessarily possess these tools. Even if this is correct, it does not allow the Court to go where it is not permitted. Even if the Māori Land Court is the most appropriate forum to resolve this dispute, it can only do so if it has jurisdiction. Whakataunga Decision [38] For these reasons, the Court does not have jurisdiction to determine th...