Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 26 A Labour Inspector v Victoria 88 Ltd [pdf, 484 KB]

   ...Freeman shall not enter into an employment agreement as an employer, or be an officer of an employer; or be involved in the hiring or employment of employees for a period of three years. [38] The order should be made under s 142M(1)(a), which permits an order to be made where there is a declaration of breach, as here. Given the time limitation issues referred to above,25 I do not consider that it is appropriate to rely on s 142M(1)(b), because although there have in fact been pers...

2. 2021-04-11 - Evidence Summary - Christina Bright 12 April 2021 [pdf, 307 KB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY UNDER Resource Management Act 1991 (Act). 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 Court under section 142(2)(b) of the RMA SUMMARY EVIDENCE - CHRISTINA ELYSE BRIGHT 11 April 2021 1 Introduction 1. My full name is Christ...

3. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 AC evidence chief Sam Shumane [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...berth holders, will be allowed to enter the restricted area at the cul-de-sac. I agree with Mr Mitchell that such vehicles will be able to enter the marina’s parking facility for drop-off and pick-up while non-berth holders will not even be permitted to enter the cul-de-sac for any drop-off or pick-up. 30. While I maintain the view that this level of drop-off and pick-up activities will occur within the marina’s parking facility I no longer have the view that this volume is in...

4. LCRO 195/2017 LH v SR and HP (19 March 2019) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...lawyer’s failure to comply with realistic timetables for filing of documents set by a Committee. [44] Ms LH had been granted an adjournment to allow her further time to provide her first submission in response. She did not file within the time permitted by the first extension granted. [45] The notice of hearing allowed adequate time for the parties to provide response to the issues identified in the notice of hearing. The issues as framed in the notice of hearing, were cou...

5. [2017] NZEnvC 126 T Barrett v Thames Coromandel District Council [pdf, 9 MB]

   ...there is, overall, more distance to the boundary except adjacent to Oxley Close towards the eastern end. [38] In considering the Council's current provision, the constraint on the southern side of the airfield is less stringent, and would permit a higher building closer to the southern boundary, particularly at Oxley Close. The justification for this is unclear, and it appears to be based upon an assumption that the safety margin at that end of the field is met by the box displ...

6. Parininihi Ki Waitotara Incorporation- Section 53 Block IX, Opunake Survey District (2005) 159 Aotea MB 146 (159 AOT 146) [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...decisions upheld lower Court refusals to change the status of Maori freehold to general land, the Maketu 2A2 judgment did the opposite. The Court also acknowledged in Maketu that the intention of Parliament in enacting sections 135 and 136 was to permit the change of status where, following consideration of the principles and objectives of the Act, the Court was still satisfied that there had been compliance with those sections. Put another way, while the Act is premised on the principle...

7. [2017] NZEnvC 181 Titirangi Protection Group Inc and Ors v Watercare Services Limited and Auckland Council [pdf, 10 MB]

   ...parties as to whether the new treatment plant between Manuka Park Road and Scenic Drive, and to the north of Woodland Park Road are appropriate. Mr Loutit suggested I should make a general declaration that any plant and associated structures are permitted anywhere within the designation subject to the constraints of the conditions and regional consents. [37] Given the factual matrix before the Court, I would be reluctant to make firm conclusions as to whether or not a treatment pl...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 3 (21 January 2022) [pdf, 557 KB]

   ...Relations Act or any other statute, tax or otherwise, Mr Brill has properly characterised himself. The Law Society was entitled to rely on the repeated assertions made to it that Mr Brill was an employee and it was in this mode that Mr Brill was permitted to practise. [40] Mr Brill cannot claim to be uninformed on the matter. He had been engaged with the Law Society for some years on the subject, culminating in the email sent to him by the Law Society on 17 March 2016 when he wa...

9. LCRO 80/2022 NL v EB (23 July 2024) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...contrary to the client’s direction. [116] This requirement is reflected in the Trust Accounting Guidelines produced by the New Zealand Law Society, which are equally applicable to Conveyancing Practitioners.27 The Guidelines say: 6.13 You are not permitted to deduct fees from a client’s trust money unless you have provided that client with an account for the services carried out (Regulation 9(1) and the client has authorised the deduction (Section 110). 6.14 You must, prior to c...

10. AP v ZG LCRO 278/2012 (14 March 2014) [pdf, 156 KB]

    ...little change between the sets of Rules applying before and after that date. The real relevance is the consequences flowing from a breach of the Rules. [59] Rule 6.1 of the 1996 Nominee Company Rules provided: A responsible practitioner must not permit an investment to be made in the name of a solicitors nominee company by an investor unless the investment is made in accordance with a specific authority. [60] Rule 6.1 required a separate authority in the form provided in Appen...